Preamble

The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

SLOW-MOVING TRAFFIC.

Mr. DAY: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any special instructions have been issued to the police in the Metropolitan district with reference to the by-law which has been in force since the 12th March, 1914, with regard to slow-moving traffic keeping near the kerb; and can he give particulars?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): The matter is dealt with in the General Orders of the Force, and further instructions have been given by way of memoranda. I will send the hon. Member a copy of one of the memoranda which deals with the subject in some detail.

Mr. DAY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it would greatly facilitate traffic if this by-law were strongly adhered to?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think it would, but, of course, the hon. Member must understand that the police must exercise those powers with reason, having regard to the traffic of the locality; and the orders in the memorandum are that it is desirable to keep slow-running traffic to the side.

MOTOR TAXATION.

Commander SOUTHBY: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that motor cars whose engines were manufactured in 1913, and previously, are allowed 25 per cent. rebate on the licence duty; and whether, observing the very large number of secondhand motor cars now in use and the fact
that many of them are owned by persons of small means, he will consider altering the present regulations and allowing a 25 per cent. rebate on all cars whose engines are 10 years old and upwards?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I have been asked to answer this question. The matter to which my hon. Friend refers was raised in the Debate on the Finance Bill, and I then stated that before the next Budget the question would be fully examined with a view to arriving at a decision whether it was possible or desirable to allow a rebate to motor cars above a certain age.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Has the right hon. Gentleman been considering the matter since he gave his undertaking to look carefully into the matter?

Colonel ASHLEY: Certainly.

Captain CROCOKSHANK: Is the question being examined, and by whom?

Oral Answers to Questions — DISTRESSED AREAS.

MINISTERS OF RELIGION.

Sir ROBERT THOMAS: 3.
asked the Home Secretary if he is aware that there is great distress among minister of religion in the depressed areas, particularly in South Wales; and whether, in view of their ineligibility for unemployment pay, he will consider some other means for their relief?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): I have been asked to reply. My attention has not previously been called to special distress among persons of the class mentioned. Any special arrangements for their assistance as a class would appear to be a matter for the religious associations to which they are attached.

CHILDREN.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that large numbers of the children are attending the elementary schools in the county of Durham suffering from hunger and very often without proper boots and clothing
and that the local education authority have no funds at their disposal to render any aid because of the poverty of the county; and will he now say what proposals, if any, he has to remedy this state of affairs?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): I cannot agree that the Durham County Council are too poor to do what local education authorities in other distressed areas are doing. For the rest, I must ask the hon. Member to await the statement promised by the Prime Minister.

Mr. RICHARDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the county council have had before them the question of the feeding of the children, but that they have not the funds to do it, and that the children are without food and going to school hungry and 'without boots and without clothing? Can nothing be done by your Department?

Lord E. PERCY: I am afraid I must repeat that so far as the feeding is concerned that is a responsibility of the local authority; but I have been in communication with them, and they have had assistance from the Board. I cannot agree that while local authorities in other distressed areas can find funds for feeding the Durham County Council cannot.

Mr. LAWSON: Is it not the fact that this local authority have always been ready to feed them in the past when having funds at their disposal?

Lord E. PERCY: It has certainly done so in the past. I know how serious is the financial condition in Durham, but it is not more serious than in many areas in South Wales, and I cannot agree that they really have not got the money to do what they ought to do.

Mr. LAWSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that they have always had the will to do it in the past?

Lord E. PERCY: I am afraid that the fact that the local authority have had the will to do things in the past does not excuse them for not doing it now.

Mr. RICHARDSON: In giving me that answer, has the right hon. Gentleman taken note of the rates now being levied in the county of Durham?

Lord E. PERCY: Yes, and I have taken into account the rates which are being levied in the Rhondda and many other distressed areas.

Mr. ROBINSON: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Education the number of districts where children are being fed by the local education authority and give the names of those districts where the education rate is 2s. in the £ or more; and whether grants will be made to enable educational authorities in the poorer areas to supply food on seven days of the week to the children?

Lord E. PERCY: The number of areas in which children are being fed by the local education authority is 126. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement showing in which of these areas the education rate is two shillings in the £ or more. It is open to authorities to provide meals on seven days of the week if, in their opinion, the circumstances render it necessary, and grant is payable by the Board on the expenditure so incurred.

Following is the statement:

Local education authorities who are feeding school children and whose education rates are 2s. in the £ or more.

Counties:



Warwickshire.
Glamorgan.


Yorks. W. Riding.
Monmouth.


County Boroughs:



Barnsley.
Liverpool.


Barrow.
Manchester.


Birkenhead.
Northampton.


Birmingham.
Norwich.


Blackburn.
Nottingham.


Bolton.
Oldham.


Bootle.
Portsmouth.


Bradford.
Preston.


Bristol.
Reading.


Burnley.
Rochdale.


Carlisle.
St. Helens.


Coventry.
Salford.


Derby.
Sheffield.


Doncaster.
Smethwick.


East Ham.
Southampton.


Gateshead.
South Shields.


Grimsby.
Stoke-on-Trent.


Halifax.
Sunderland.


Kingston-upon-Hull.
Tynemouth.


Leeds.
West Ham.


Leicester.
West Hartlepool.

Mr. PALING: 20
asked the President of the Board of Education (1) whether any steps are being taken to provide clothes and footwear for children of under-employed miners and other necessitous persons in the distressed areas;
(2) whether any steps are being taken to provide footwear and clothes for children in other areas than South Wales, Durham, and Northumberland?

Lord E. PERCY: Local funds for the provision of boots for necessitous children exist in practically every area in this country, but the hon. Member doubtless refers to assistance given from outside to areas where these local funds have proved to be insufficient. The provision of hoots and clothing for the children in the distressed mining areas is one of the main objects of the Lord Mayor's Fund and of some of the other Funds
which have been opened for the relief of distress in the coalfields. I believe that most of the money at present subscribed has been devoted to this purpose. Hitherto the whole of the Lord Mayor's Fund has been devoted to South Wales, Northumberland, and Durham, but I understand that other distressed mining areas will share in the money now being raised for the Fund by Lord Mayors and Mayors of provincial cities.

Mr. PALING: Is the Noble Lord aware that where the miners are not unemployed but under-employed, in thousands of cases they receive no more assistance than those who are totally unemployed?

Lord E. PERCY: As far as I know—I am not responsible for the distribution of these grants—no distinction has been made between those miners who are unemployed and those under-employed.

Mr. PALING: 41.
asked the Minister of Health whether anything is being done to provide footwear and clothes for children not attending school in the distressed areas?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. This is within the ambit of the Lord Mayor s Fund.

Mr. PALING: Does that mean that nothing is being done under the Poor Law to give relief in these cases?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: With regard to footwear and clothes, I think it is provided by the Lord Mayor's Fund, and not by the guardians.

Mr. PALING: Is nothing being done by the Poor Law authorities? Is it being left to private charity entirely?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I shall have to ask the hon. Member to give me notice of that question.

RELIEF EFFORTS (CO-ORDINATION).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 47.
asked the Prime Minister which Ministry will be responsible for the Department under Mr. Curtis-Bennett set up to co-ordinate charitable efforts on behalf of the distressed districts; and whether the expenses of this Department will be borne by the Treasury or by the voluntary funds?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I may refer the hon. and gallant Member
to my reply on the 10th instant to questions by the hon. Members for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) and Gateshead (Mr. Beckett). The arrangements outlined in that reply do not comprise the creation of a Government Department; but the administration expenses involved will be met out of public funds.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in that reply he did not state what Minister in this House could answer questions about this Government service, and can he inform me on that point?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is implicit in the question, I agree, although it is in another form. I shall be very pleased to answer that question on Monday.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: May we have a statement in regard to the co-ordination of these efforts?

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope to be in a position on Monday to make a general statement, and I shall then, I hope, be able to indicate to whom questions should be addressed on such points as that on which the hon. and gallant Member desires information.

Mr. MARDY JONES: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government is prepared to advise the controllers of the Lord Mayor's Fund, or of any projected co-ordinated national scheme of various relief funds in aid of the distressed mining areas, to make their purchases of goods with the local trades-people in each of those areas, as otherwise the local trades-people will suffer additional trade losses to those they have already necessarily incurred in connection with the distress which has obtained in most of these mining areas for a considerable period?

The PRIME MINISTER: While I have every sympathy with the position of shopkeepers in the distressed areas, I do not think this is a matter on which the Government could usefully make any suggestion.

Mr. MARDY JONES: I do not question the Government's sympathy in this matter of co-ordinating the relief funds, hut does the Prime Minister realise that the local traders have also suffered
serious losses due to the prolonged period of distress in the mining areas; and does he not appreciate that the funds raised should be spent with the local traders, at, of course, approved prices, wholesale and retail?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid we should be entering into a Debate very quickly if we argued the merits of the case. Quite shortly, the position is this: So far, the Lord Mayor's Fund is dealing with boots and clothing alone, as I understand, and the administration of it is being carried out under their guidance, and is being attended to by the Lord Mayors of Cardiff and Newcastle. The only point that I wish to make to the hon. Member is that, first of all, the additional losses of the tradesmen cannot well be considered, because the boots and clothing are given specifically to people who could not otherwise afford to buy them. The practical difficulty of taking such a course as the hon. Member desires is that it would make another charge; by allowing a profit to the tradesman it, would diminish the amount that could be spent. After all, we should only be in a position to offer advice, and it is sometimes very difficult to offer advice.

Mr. JONES: The Prime Minister appears to have misunderstood part of my question. I realise that the arrangements with regard to boots and clothing are all right, and must stand, but in so far as large money contributions are made to the relief funds, would it not be better and fairer to spend the money with the local traders at agreed fair prices? Otherwise, the local traders, who are already badly hit by the distress, will suffer still further loss of trade by this way of distributing the moneys in the relief funds.

The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Member is now speaking of something which I could not discuss with him.

Mr. JONES: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it is degrading on the part of the Tory Government to organise charity?

Oral Answers to Questions — FACTORY HOURS, BIRMINGHAM AREA.

Mr. KELLY: 4.
asked the Home Secretary the number of factories in the Bir-
mingham area where the five-day week is in operation; and the number of men and women employed in such factories, together with the work on which they are engaged?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to his question on 11th December.

Mr. KELLY: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that this is dealt with more fully by the chief inspector in his next report?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, I will call his attention to it.

Oral Answers to Questions — WANDSWORTH PRISON (EXECUTIONS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 5.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has now been able to arrange in future for executions to take place at some other prison than Wandsworth, in view of the number of young persons and first offenders confined in that prison?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have been considering the question of transferring elsewhere the young prisoners now in Wandsworth, and I am glad to say that arrangements have now been settled and will come into operation early next year for accommodating the prisoners under 21 in Wormwood Scrubs Prison—where no executions take place. As regards offenders serving a first sentence of imprisonment, the hon. and gallant Member is under a misapprehension: the London prison set apart for these is not Wandsworth but Wormwood Scrubs.

Oral Answers to Questions — CRIMINAL ASSAULTS, CARNARVONSHIRE.

Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: 6.
asked the Home Secretary how many criminal assaults were committed on girls in the county of Carnarvon in the year 1927; and whether there is any reason to think the crime is increasing in the county?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: There were eight sexual offences against girls under 16, and four against females whose ages do not appear, known to the police in 1927. The figure relating to girls is higher than in previous recent years.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY

WORKMEN'S CCMPENSATION.

Mr. JOHN: 8.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has now completed his inquiry; and will he now state whether he will inroduce this Session a Bill making it compulsory on all colliery companies to insure with an insurance company against workmen's compensation risk?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, Sir. The inquiries have not yet been completed. A list of colliery companies reported to have gone into liquidation since 1st January, 1927, has been complied, and I have now written to the liquidators in each case asking for information in regard to any cases in which the workmen or their dependants have suffered or are likely to suffer any loss of compensation, and also in regard to the extent to which the companies have been insured or made other provision to meet their liabilities. The liquidators have been pressed for an early reply, and will no doubt let me have the information as soon as practicable, hut meanwhile I am afraid I can add nothing to my previous statements.

Mr. MACLEAN: Does not the Home Secretary think it might he desirable for the Government to institute a scheme of national insurance to cover this sort of thing?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: This Government, at all events, never acts without full consideration, and, to enable me to give that consideration to this difficult matter, I am getting the information for which the hon. Member asked.

Mr. SPEAKER: The last supplementary question did not arise out of the answer.

Mr. JOHN: Does not the Home Secretary believe that the information which he has in his possession is adequate to warrant him in producing a Bill to protect these people who are suffering at this time?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I can assure the House that the information is not complete, and until it is complete it would he most improper to introduce legislation.

Mr. TINKER: When the right hon. Gentleman gets the information, will he make a statement to the House on the position?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Certainly.

LOW-TEMPERATURE CARBONISATION.

Miss BONDFIELD: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government has considered the question of a guarantee of capital for the development of all approved low-temperature carbonisation systems for extracting the by-products of coal, motor spirit, fuel oils, lubricating oil, smokeless fuel and gas; and if he will now make a statement on the matter?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King): I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave yesterday to my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Cardiff, South (Captain A. Evans).

Mr. PALING: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman make it clear whether anything is being done or not in this direction—whether they are finding capital, or, if not, whether they are considering any scheme?

Commodore KING: No, Sir.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Are we to understand that the Government are not prepared to assist in this direction? Would it not be a good thing for the Government to test some of the most promising low-temperature carbonisation schemes on a big scale themselves, seeing that some of them have about reached the commercial stage, and to try them out with a big plant on a large scale, to prove the commercial benefits of laboratory tests?

Commodore KING: I have not noticed that companies formed to work low-temperature carbonisation processes have any difficulty in raising capital.

WAGES, SOUTH WALES.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 70.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has been consulted in regard to the wage reduction proposed by the South Wales coal-owners; and what action he proposes to take?

Commodore KING: No, Sir. I have not been consulted, and I do not propose to take any action, as the claim is being
dealt with in accordance with the terms of the district agreement to which both employers and employés are parties.

CHARITABLE LOTTERIES.

Commander BELLAIRS: 11.
asked the Home Secretary whether the Government will consider the question of issuing licences for lotteries in aid of hospitals, charities, etc., in view of the differences of police action in various parts of the country since various decisions in the High Court as to Lottery, Gaming, and Betting Acts?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: All public lotteries are unlawful, whether for charity or otherwise, and I have no authority to grant exemption from the law. This would require fresh legislation.

Commander BELLAIRS: My question asked whether the Government will consider legislation; and will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the advent of the Betting Duty, recognising betting, almost compels the Government to legislate on this matter?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is one of the matters I am considering very seriously.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most of the anomalies are anomalies of administration rather than of legislation and will he do something to remove the administrative anomalies?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the hon. and gallant Member will tell me where the administrative anomalies arise, I will pay attention to them.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Is it correctly reported that the right hon. Gentleman has made a bet on the next election?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I saw it in the paper.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Is not the difficulty about getting on the broad path that of being able to stop?

Commander BELLAIRS: 12.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the police notice issued by the Chief Constable of Maidstone, stating that criminal proceedings will be taken against anyone printing, publish-
ing, conducting, or in any way taking part in selling any ticket or chance in any lottery, draw, Christmas draw, lucky dip, etc., that it is no defence to any proceedings that the object intended to be assisted is a charity or a hospital; and, in view of the reaction of a meticulous enforcement of law on the efficiency and discipline of police, whether he can offer any guidance, as was done in the case of whist drives, in regard to draws and lucky dips?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: My lion. and gallant Friend has sent me a copy of the notice. The notice was not issued at my instigation, and I have no responsibility for it. No such notice has been issued by the police for whose action I am responsible, and my hon. and gallant Friend must complain to the local authority.

Commander BELLAIRS: Could not the right hon. Gentleman advise chief constables, where the law is in flagrant opposition to public opinion, that they should only act with the unanimous opinion of their watch committees?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is the whole point. The chief constables of the counties and the boroughs are responsible, not to myself, but to their watch committees, and the remedy I suggest to my hon. and gallant Friend is to communicate with the watch committee to see whether they do concur in the notice which has been issued.

EDUCATION.

DENTAL SERVICE, WALES.

Sir R. THOMAS: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Education what is the number of schools in Wales which have a dental service; how many dentists are employed; the number of children who had their teeth inspected during the last school year; the number who received treatment; and the estimated total cost?

Lord E. PERCY: I am unable to state the number of schools in Wales which have a dental service, but the number of education authorities undertaking dental treatment is 27 out of a total of 30. The number of dentists employed is 45. The number of children dentally inspected during 1927 was 162,605, and the number
treated 68,345. The total cost of the salaries of the school dentists was, approximately, £18,000, and additional expenditure was incurred for travelling expenses, premises, equipment, dental attendants, etc.

SCHOOL BUILDINGS.

Mr. HANNON: 14.
asked the President of tae Board of Education what is the number of secondary and elementary schools built or improved from the beginning of 1925 up to the latest date for which figures are available; in how many instances have classes been made smaller in elementary schools; and how many free places have been added in secondary schools during the same period?

Lord E. PERCY: Plans have been approved for the erection of 494 new elementary schools and of 51 new secondary schools since the beginning of 1925. In the same period plans for the improvement or replacement of 3,200 elementary schools and of 717 secondary schools have been approved. These figures do not take account of minor improvements for which plans are not required. On the 31st March, 1925, there were 21,332 classes in elementary schools which had more than 50 children on the registers. By the 31st March, 1928, this number had been reduced to 16,686. The number of free places in secondary schools has increased from 128,758 on the 1st October, 1924, to, approximately, 157,000 on the 1st October, 1928.

Mr. HANNON: Does not that indicate a very substantial advance in the development of public education in this country in that period?

Lord E. PERCY: I think so—yes.

Mr. COVE: That is a matter for debate.

SIZE OF CLASSES.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the 40–48 scheme approved by the Board for the London area permits as many as 53 pupils on the roll in infant schools and 44 on the roll in senior departments; and for how long do the Board propose to sanction schemes where the size of classes exceed the limit laid down in the Circular issued to local authorities, namely, 50 on the roll 11 junior departments and 40 on the roll in senior departments?

Lord E. PERCY: I am aware that the 40–48 scheme allows a slightly larger number of children to be carried on the register without the class being normally in excess of those figures. As I informed the hon. Member on 22nd November last, I think it would be undesirable for the Board to disturb the agreement made with the London County Council in 1912 and renewed in 1924.

Mr. RICHARDSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman bring pressure to bear on the London County Council to get down to those figures?

Lord E. PERCY: That is the same question. I think, when you are engaged on a particular piece of administration for the improvement of the schools on certain lines, you had better attain your end along those lines before starting to do something further.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION, MITCHAM.

Mr. MELLER: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the lack of elementary school accommodation in the Galpins Road and Sherwood Park districts of Mitcham; and whether, seeing that the provision of additional accommodation is being held up by delay on the part of his Department in approving the plans, he will see that the cause of the delay is removed?

Lord E. PERCY: There has been no delay on the part of my Department in dealing with this case. My attention was first drawn to the shortage of school accommodation on the 19th September last, and I at once communicated with the local education authority. The final plans for the new school were received on the 6th instant, and they have already been approved.

PUBLIC HEALTH.

VENEREAL DISEASE (SCHOOL CHILDREN, CARNARVONSHIRE).

Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Education what was the number of school children suffering from venereal disease in the county of Carnarvon in 1927 and the number now under treatment?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have been asked to reply. I have no means of
obtaining information as to the number of school children suffering from venereal disease; but I am informed that the number of children between the ages of 5 and 14 who are now attending the treatment centre in this county is three.

Mr. DAVIES: Is not the average for England and Wales considerably higher?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I should have to have notice of that question.

Mr. DAVIES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the horrible charges which are being made against the school children of this county in a weekly paper, "John Bull," with a very large circulation, and the editor of that paper has actually refused to publish any refutation of those horrible lies against these little children?

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: Can my right hon. Friend find out if the cases of venereal disease are hereditary or acquired, and state specifically what kind of venereal disease?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I should require notice of that question also.

HOSPITALS (WIRELESS).

Mr. DAY: 22.
asked the Minister of Health how many hospitals under his control are now fitted with wireless?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that this information is not available.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (MEDICINES).

Colonel APPLIN: 23.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the waste of medicines due to doses being prescribed in drams and shown on the bottle as tablespoonfuls; and, seeing that the average tablespoon holds 50 per cent. more medicine than four drams, the usual dose, and that on a conservative estimate the resulting waste amounts to over 4,000,000 bottles of medicine if only 10 per cent. of the bottles of medicine supplied under the National Health insurance are used in tablespoon doses, will he consider a regulation requiring all doses to be shown on the bottle in drams or ounces and the use of graduated bottles, or the issue of a cheap medicine glass?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am advised that the graduated markings on medicine bottles usually indicate half-ounces, that
is, four drams, and that the reference on the bottles to tablespoonfuls is intended merely to assist patients in finding a convenient household measure of approximately half an ounce. My investigation of the prescribing of insurance practitioners does not suggest to me that medicines are often repeated before the proper time, which would be the result of the consumption of over-large doses; and as at present advised, I do not think the matter is one in which I am called upon to intervene.

MATERNITY AND CHILD WELFARE.

Mr. BRIGGS: 36.
asked the Minister of Health what was the amount of the grants given last year for maternity and child welfare?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The amount of the grants for maternity and child welfare paid in the last financial year out of the Vote for the Ministry of Health was approximately £1,040,000 including about £16,000 in respect of the training of midwives and health visitors.

Mr. BRIGGS: Would my right hon. Friend welcome the receipt of further money from the Treasury for these purposes?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I. should always welcome money from the Treasury for these grants.

Mr. MARCH: Has the right hon. Gentleman given notice to any of these maternity and child welfare centres to reduce the amount they are now allowed for expectant mothers?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No distinction is drawn.

POOR LAW.

CASUAL'S DEATH, NEWHAVEN.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 25.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the death of an ex-service man who arrived at the Newhaven institution on 18th August last at 6.0 p.m. and died shortly after 6.30 p.m.; whether he is aware that the death was stated by the coroner and the medical officer to have been due to a cardiac attack brought on by over-exertion; that the over-exertion was due to the
man walking 14 miles over a hilly road from the Eastbourne casual ward to Newhaven and helping his wife to push a perambulator; that he was seen near the Newhaven institution to be staggering and ill; what food was given him while in the Eastbourne casual ward, and what food was given him, his wife, and child for the journey; whether on the journey there were any and, if so, how many relieving officers or other Poor Law officers whose duty it would have been to have relieved him if he had applied; how many parishes lie between Eastbourne and Newhaven; whether any report on this death has been made to the Ministry by the guardians or the inspector; and whether he will supply more opportunities between Eastbourne and Newhaven and wherever casual wards are more than 10 miles apart for persons in sudden and urgent necessity to obtain relief?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My attention has not previously been drawn to this case and I am reminding the medical officer of the institution of his duty to report to me any sudden or accidental death occurring in the institution. No inquest was held, the coroner being satisfied on the statements made to him and the certificate of the medical officer, that there was a history of malaria which had brought on cardiac degeneration and that the deceased died of angina pectoris, and that he had no ground to suspect neglect on the part of any official. The heart attack followed the exertion of walking from Eastbourne to Newhaven, but I have no information as to his pushing a perambulator or being seen in the condition suggested outside the Newhaven institution. The man was seen by a medical officer at Eastbourne and would have beer advised to remain there if he had shown any signs of disease. He received the usual dietary and on discharge the usual allowance of lunch. He passed through the districts of two relieving officers. There are six parishes between Eastbourne and Newhaven. I do not see any necessity for such action on my part as is suggested in the last part of the question.

Mr. RICHARDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that these people do not know where the relieving officers are to be found and that if there had
been some other ward at a less distance than 14 miles this life might have been saved?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think that there is any evidence to show that that would have been so.

Mr. R. MORRISON: As this was an ex-service man who apparently died owing to an attack of malaria, was he in receipt of a service pension?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know.

CHESTER-LE-STREET UNION.

Mr. LAWSON: 26.
asked the Minister of Health whether it is his intention to call for a report of their administration by the appointed guardians of Chesterle-Street for the six months ending June, 1928; and when the report will be published?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not propose to call for a further report in this matter. If the guardians submit such a report I will then consider the question of its publication.

Mr. LAWSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain the reluctance of the guardians to report upon this area, in view of the fact that they were in such a hurry to report upon the necessitous areas?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is not part of the regular duty of guardians to report.

Mr. PALING: These are not regular guardians.

MEDICAL OFFICER, CHESTER-LE-STREET (APPOINTMENT).

Mr. LAWSON: 27.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the Chesterle-Street guardians have appointed a medical officer for Birtley without advertising the vacancy; that the application for the post of the temporary medical officer was never acknowledged; and whether he is prepared to take any steps to deal with this matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware of this appointment but have not been previously informed of any failure to acknowledge the application of the practitioner temporarily employed during the vacancy. I am aware, however, that this doctor had an interview with the
chairman of the guardians on the subject. As I have already informed the hon. Member, I see no reason for action on my part.

RELIEF, BRIDGEND AND PONTYPRIDD. (ABLE-BODIED MEN.)

Mr. JOHN: 42.
asked the Minister of Health how many able-bodied single men and able-bodied married men have been paid out-door relief by the Bridgend and Pontypridd guardians, respectively, for each week from 1st October, 1928, and the scale of relief paid to each person per week; and what available room is there at these institutions for additional inmates?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that the exact information for which the hon. Member asks is not available. During the month of October, 1928, the average number of men ordinarily engaged in some regular occupation who were in receipt of out-relief in the Bridgend and Cowbridge and Pontypridd Unions was 597 and 2,924 respectively, and the average weekly amount of relief per person in money and kind afforded to these men and to their dependants was 5s. 1½d., and 4s. 4¾d. respectively. On the night of the 11th February, 1928—the latest date for which figures are available—there were 83 vacant beds in the Bridgend and Cowbridge general institution, and 184 vacant beds in the Pontypridd general institution.

Mr. JOHN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the guardians at their meeting on the 8th December admitted that there was no room available for the present inmates of the institution; and, if that be so, how are they going to accept the 3,000 men or more who are not in receipt of unemployment benefit and who live in the neighbourhood of the institution?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware that at the present time any difficulty is being found in finding accommodation for those in receipt of relief.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Is it not the case that there are some thousands of able-bodied men who are refused Poor Law relief under instructions from the Ministry of Health; and is the Minister aware that if they make application for indoor relief, there is no accommodation available?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware that what is indicated in the hon. Member's last statement is the case.

Mr. JONES: It is a matter of fact. There are over 3,000, and it is a well-known fact that the building cannot accommodate one-tenth of them.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: They have not applied for it.

Mr. JOHN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the inspector, at the meeting on the 8th December, complained that the scale provided by the Bridgend Board of Guardians was too high—that the 5s. a week that they were giving was too high, or rather excessive—and does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the inspector that 5s. a week is excessive for outdoor relief?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think that that is what the inspector said. I think be said that it was higher than in other comparable unions.

Mr. JONES: Did not the inspector say that in his opinion, speaking on behalf of the Ministry of Health, their scale was altogether too high?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That may be so, but I cannot remember what all the inspectors say on all these occasions.

Mr. WELLOCK: Is task work imposed in all these cases?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I must have notice of that question.

Mr. JOHN: 43.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Bridgend Board of Guardians, at their meeting on 8th December, were reprimanded by the Ministry's inspector for granting outdoor relief to able-bodied men; that the scale of relief was on too generous a basis; that only institutional relief is to be given in future; and that test work is to be a condition of relief; whether the inspector was acting under the Minister's instructions; and, if not, will he take steps to counteract the inspector's orders?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not yet received any report of this meeting, but am making inquiry.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RATING.

STATISTICS.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: 29.
asked the Minister of Health if he will state, in each class, the counties, county boroughs, non-county boroughs, urban districts, rural districts, and parish councils, respectively, in England and Wales, with the highest and lowest estimated loss of rates through de-rating, the estimated amount of the losses per annum in each case, together with the estimated loss of yield of a penny rate in each case?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will have a statement prepared giving such information as is available, and forwarded to the Eon. Member as soon as possible.

FLINT.

Mr. GOODMAN ROBERTS: 32.
asked the Minister of Health when he will publish the figures relating to the county of Flint in connection with the proposals for reform in local government and as set out for other counties in Cmd. 3227?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Members for Cardigan (Mr. Morris) and Merioneth (Mr. Haydn Jones) on 6th December.

ASSESSMENTS.

Mr. ROBINSON: 40.
asked the Minister of Health if he will state the rateable value of England and Wales and the estimated rateable value on 1st April next; and whether he has any reason to anticipate that a number of local authorities will be unable to complete the revaluation of property in their districts before, the end of this financial year?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The rateable value, according to the Valuation Lists in force in April last, was £267,639,000. I am unable to furnish an estimate of the rateable value as at 1st April next, on which date new valuation lists will come into force in the majority of rating areas. I have no reason to anticipate that any rating authorities will be unable to complete the revaluation of property in their districts before the end of this financial year.

Miss BONDFIELD (for Mr. W. THOIRNE): 30.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is prepared to issue a White
Paper showing the increase or decrease in the assessments of all local authorities affected by the de-rating Clause in the Local Government Bill?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the very full particulars published in the series of eleven Papers issued in the early part of the year and entitled "Rates levied by Local Authorities (England and Wales)."

LIQUOR AND TOBACCO TRADES.

Mr. BRIGGS: 54.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the estimated cost of de-rating each of the three classes of industry; breweries, whisky distilleries, and tobacco factories?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I have been asked to reply. The only information available regarding the rating relief of separate industries is contained in my replies of 14th May and 21st June to the hon. Members for Rochdale, Leith and Dewsbury, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.

Mr. BRIGGS: Can the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of evading this cost—[HON. MEMBERS: "Avoiding."] — avoiding, or evading, which you will—so that he can thereby be able to meet the desires of the Minister of Health?

HOUSING.

ROAD CHARGES.

Mr. ALBERY: 31.
asked the Minister of Health whether cases have been brought to his notice in which hardship has been caused to persons acquiring houses with the aid of loans from local authorities under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts through their being unaware of liability for road charges; and whether he will bring to the notice of local authorities the desirability of warning applicants for loans for the purchase of houses of their liability for road charges?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: One such case has been brought to my notice by my hon. Friend but I am not aware of any other cases. I have no reason to think that local authorities normally do not satisfy themselves that applicants for
loans under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts are aware of all the relevant facts affecting the property on which the advance is to be made and this question will no doubt bring the matter to the notice of local authorities generally.

SUBSIDY HOUSES.

Mr. LEE: 39.
asked the Minister of Health if he will supply the number of houses upon which a State subsidy has been paid under the various Housing Acts of 1919 and subsequently?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Forrest) on 23rd November, 1928, of which I will scud the hon. Member a copy.

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Mr. LEE: 37.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will provide statistics showing the number of orphans receiving benefit under the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925; and whether any such orphans have been placed in institutions?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As regards England and Wales 13,019 orphans were in receipt of orphans' pensions on 30th September, 1928, the latest date for which figures are available; as regards the second part of the question some of these pensioners are now in institutions but it is not possible to say how many of them have entered institutions since the pensions were awarded.

Mr. LEE: 38.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will provide statistics showing the number of applications made for pension at 63 years of age and the number being paid to males and females, respectively?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As regards England and Wales 738,398 claims for pensions between the ages of 65 and 70 were received up to the 6th December and at the same date 573,846 pensions had been awarded. It is not possible to give the exact distribution up to date of these pensions as between men and women but it is estimated that 387,156 are awards to men and 186,690 to women.

Mr. ROBINSON: 44.
asked the Minister of Health seeing that contributions
under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, exceed disbursements by more than £20,000,000, whether any sum has yet been paid to the pension fund by the Exchequer?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Exchequer contribution of 4,000,000 a year to the Widows', Orphans', and Cad Age Contributory Pensions scheme has been paid regularly in accordance with Section 11 (3) of the Act. The excess of contributions over disbursements accumulated in the initial years of the scheme will be used, in accordance with the financial provisions of the scheme, in meeting payments falling due from the present year onwards.

Mr. MACKINDER: Will the Minister use his best influence to prevent the Chancellor of the Exchequer from raiding this Fund?

Mr. MARCH: He has no control over it.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

PAYMASTER-GENERAL (SALARY).

Mr. R. MORRISON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister for what reason the Government has decided to attach a salary of £1,500 to the office of His Majesty's Paymaster-General?

The PRIME MINISTER: A salary of £1,500 has been attached to the office of Paymaster-General while the holder of the office is performing specific duties in connection with the Local Government Bill.

Mr. MORRISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any precedent for this office having a salary of £1,500 a year attached to it?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir. In 1916, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson) held this office, a salary of £2,000 a year was attached to it.

Mr. MORRISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Labour Government this office was carried out without any charge at all, and that it only occupied a few minutes per week?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir; that is quite true. Normally this is an unpaid office, but there is no reason why, when specific duties which would be performed by another office are attached to it, those duties should not be remunerated now, as they were in 1916.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Was not the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson) a Member of the War Cabinet when he received that salary?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not remember whether he was or was not, but that has nothing to do with it. He was performing duties, and those duties were, very properly, remunerated. The Noble Lord who is performing these functions during the next few months will, similarly, be performing duties, and he will be, very properly, remunerated.

Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: Is there any reason for taking legislative work in these Chambers and paying for it at piecework prices?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there any comparison between the work of a Member of the War Cabinet during the War and the piloting of a Bill through the Upper House?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is not for me to compare values of work done.

HIGHER POSTS.

Major - General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: 60.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what reductions, if any, in the higher posts of the Civil Service are contemplated?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): The extent to which it may prove possible to reduce the number of the higher posts of the Civil Service will depend on the future course of legislation and policy. The necessity for such post, as of all other posts, is under constant scrutiny with a view to economies wherever practicable.

Sir R. HUTCHISON: Is it the hon. Gentleman's intention to consider a reduction in the higher ranks in the Civil Service, as opposed to the continued reductions of the lower ranks?

Mr. SAMUEL: We take everything into consideration. There is no favouritism about the matter.

WAR OFFICE.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 78.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will recommend the adoption of a different title for his Department with a view to the better indication of its duties?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): I am not in favour of such a change. It would, I am advised, involve legislation, and the duties of the War Office are sufficiently well known to make such a change unnecessary.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Does my right hon. Friend not think that the title is a trifle bellicose in these Lugano days?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I hope not, and I hope that not many people think so.

NATIONAL FINANCE.

INCOME TAX.

Sir BASIL PETO: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give the gross assessment for Income Tax, Schedule A, and the yield of the tax on agricultural land for the years 1913–14, 1921–22 and 1927–28?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): The statistics collected in respect of the Income Tax (Schedule A) do not distinguish agricultural land. The only information available is the gross assessment to Income Tax (Schedule A) on all lands, whether used for agricultural purposes or not, and my hon. Friend will find this information for years up to 1925 in the Annual Reports of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. I regret that under the present system of graduation and differentiation of the Income Tax the total yield of the tax cannot he divided between the respective Schedules.

Captain CROOKSHANK: 56.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to publish a memorandum with regard to the liability to British Income Tax of Dominion and foreign visitors to this country; and, if so, when?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am unable at the moment to add anything to the replies to my hon. and gallant Friend's questions of 15th November and previous dates.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Would the right hon. Gentleman be likely to be able to give an answer after the Christmas holidays?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not know.

BETTING DUTY.

Sir B. PETO: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the yield of the Betting Duty for the year ending 31st October, 1928, on the amount of racecourse betting at 2 per cent. and on starting-price betting at 3½ per cent., and the total turnover on which the duty has been paid in each ease?

Mr. CHURCHILL: For figures of the yield of the duty on bets at the different rates, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for the Central Division of Southwark (Mr. Day) on 19th November, and I would remind him that as from 1st October, 1928, the rates of duty were reduced from 3½ per cent. and 2 per cent. to 2 per cent. and 1 per cent. respectively. The net turnover corresponding to the yield at the different rates is as follows:—

Rate.

Turnover.




£


1 per cent.
…
3,900,000


2 per cent.
…
44,625,000


3½ per cent
…
38,500,000


Total
…
£87,025,000

NATIONAL DEBT (CONVERSION OPERATIONS).

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 55.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the objections taken by the Colwyn Committee and others to the issue of stock at a substantial discount whereby the face value of the debt is considerably increased, whether when further conversions become necessary, he will explore the possibility of issuing a 4½ per cent. security, not short dated, at a price in the neighbourhood of par?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The opinion of the Colwyn Committee is entitled to great
respect but there is not, I think, general agreement on this point. Their use of the words "substantially below par" appears to indicate that they did not intend to press their opinion too far. All possibilities, including that to which the hon. Member refers, will, of course, be carefully explored before future conversion operations are decided on.

STAMP DUTIES (VOUCHERS).

Mr. DAY: 59.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the uncertainty which at present exists in the mind of the public as to the necessity of putting a two penny stamp on vouchers that are issued in acknowledgment of payment of amounts over £2, he will state the manner in which the Treasury discriminate between an ordinary receipt and a voucher given in acknowledgment of payment?

Mr. SAMUEL: A voucher given in acknowledgment of payment is a receipt and, if given in respect of a payment of £2 or more, is required to be stamped. The vouchers which do not require to be stamped as receipts are such vouchers as are commonly given in large shops when goods are sold and paid for over the counter. These vouchers are not given in acknowledgment of payment and are more in the nature of an accounting convenience to the shop. They are in the form of invoices, merely giving particulars of the goods purchased; they are given to the customer at the time of ordering goods and do not bear any words importing the receipt of money.

Mr. DAY: Does the Treasury understand that, as long as a voucher does not have the words "received payment" on it, it is not necessary to have a stamp?

Mr. SAMUEL: If it is not a receipt, it does not require a stamp.

Mr. DAY: Do I understand that as long as a piece of paper does not contain the words "received payment" it does not require a twopenny stamp?

Mr. SAMUEL: If the pieces of paper do not have such words as "received payment," and are not receipts for money they do not require a stamp.

AGRICULTURE.

ALL-BRITISH ALE (DITY).

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 58.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, with a view to benefiting agriculture, he can see his way in the new Budget to give a rebate to all-British ale brewed solely with home ingredients and using no foreign barley or sugar?

Mr. CHURCHILL: My hen. and gallant Friend will not, I am sure, expect me to anticipate next year's Budget statement.

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY (ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is proposed to offer the University of Cambridge a grant towards the sum required to enable it to accept the offer of the International Education Beard of the Rockefeller Foundation; and, if so, of what amount?

Captain BOWYER (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture. The Government have decided to offer to the University a grant of £50,000 subject, of course, to the provision of funds by Parliament. They believe that the highest national as well as Imperial and international interests demand that the great scheme made possible by the generous benefaction of the International Education Board should be fully carried into effect, for the advancement of agriculture and of the fundamental sciences on which agriculture depends.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 68.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether it is proposed to make a grant from the Empire Marketing Fund to the University of Cambridge; if so, of what amount and for what purpose?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Amery): Upon the recommendation of the Empire Marketing Board a grant of £50,000 has been promised from the Empire Marketing Fund to the University of Cambridge. This contribution is to be devoted to the development of research in agriculture and in the sciences upon which agricultural research most directly depends. Its payment is conditional upon the University raising from other sources
the total amount required to enable it to qualify for the grant of £700,000 offered by the International Education Board of the Rockefeller Foundation.

CHINESE EGGS.

Mr. HANNON: 61.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the presence of the French steamer "Glaziere" in British waters with a cargo of 40,000,000 Chinese eggs; whether these eggs are being offered for sale in this country; whether they are being marked in any way to indicate their origin; and what measures he proposes to adopt to safeguard British poultry farmers against competition of this nature?

Captain BOWYER: I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend has seen a reference in the Press to the cargo to which my hon. Friend refers, but he has no information as to its destination. The importation of this shipment would not, however, be a new feature in the trade, since large quantities of eggs are regularly imported from China. Imported eggs arc not at present required to bear an indication of origin at the time of importation, but a requirement to this effect is embodied in a draft Order-in-Council now before Parliament. In addition, home producers are taking steps to meet the competition of imported supplies by reorganising their marketing arrangements on the basis of the Agricultural Produce (Grading and Marking) Act of last Session.

Mr. HANNON: This is a very serious question. Will the hon. and gallant. Gentleman make representations to the Minister of Agriculture to take early steps to prevent the importation of Chinese eggs of any quality into this country?

Captain BOWYER: Yes, I will do that.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Are these eggs in shell or in barrel, and, if in barrel, how can the provisions of the Merchandise Marks Act be complied with?

Captain BOWYER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman had better put that question down.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are these eggs ready for the next election?

LAND DRAINAGE, WALES.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 62.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the extent of lands subject to floods in the Welsh counties; and whether any schemes for land drainage in Wales are contemplafed in the Ministry's recent announcement?

Captain BOWYER: I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend regrets that he is unable to state the area of land in Wales which may be subject to floods, but any schemes which may be submitted from Wales by those eligible to receive grants will, of course, receive consideration.

Mr. SKELTON: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman make known to his right hon. Friend the desirability of having a complete survey of the land's liable to flooding in Scotland, England and Wales, in view of the necessity of taking early steps to secure adequate drainage?

AIR SERVICES (LONDON-SOUTH AFRICA).

Sir R. THOMAS: 63.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether any investigation has been made into the practicability of establishing an air service between London and South Africa: have any opinions been formed as to the best route; are there any data regarding landing grounds; and has the South African Government been asked whether it would co-operate in assisting such an enterprise in its initial stages?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): A number of flights between London and South Africa and also between intermediate points such as Khartum and Kisumu have been made and valuable information has been obtained as a result. They have, for example, served to furnish data regarding landing grounds and the best route to he followed, but the actual details of the route selected will naturally depend upon whether landplanes or seaplanes are to be used over certain stages of the journey. These and other questions can only be finally determined when concrete proposals for an air service to
the Cape have have been formulated. I am expecting such proposals in the very early future and, if they appear prima facie practicable, immediate steps will be taken to invite the co-operation of His Majesty's Government in the Union of South Africa, who are aware of our general intention and desire to develop Imperial air communications of this nature.

MERCANTILE MARINE.

STEAMSHIP "BURMA" (LIFEBOATS).

Mr. BUCHANAN: 64.
asked the President of the Board of Trade when the lifeboats of the steamship "Burma," now lying at the Clyde docks, were last examined; how many the ship carried; how many passengers and crew was the ship capable of carrying; how many of the lifeboats were found leaking; and what was their general condition as regards seaworthiness?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The life-boats of the s.s. "Burma" were examined at the full survey for passenger certificate which was completed on the 11th February, 1928. All the lifeboats were seen in the water during the survey and none were found leaking, all being in good and seaworthy condition. The "Burma" had six lifeboats certified to carry 284 persons. The numbers of passengers and crew allowed by the passenger certificate were 133 and 139 respectively. The lifeboats were examined recently in ordinary course of survey and found to be in good general condition, some minor repairs only being required.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any regular inspection carried on by his Department of the equipment of lifeboats?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think that I answered that question the other day. When the survey takes place there is a complete survey of everything required under the regulations.

Mr. DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider appointing inspectors specially to examine the equipment?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir. There are inspectors specially for that purpose. What the hon. Gentleman asked the other day was quite a different thing,
namely, whether the regulations required the drinking water and biscuits in lifeboats to be changed at regular intervals.

REGISTERED SHIPS (SURVEYORS).

Mr. BUCHANAN: 65.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the total number of ships registered in British ports in 1920, 1924, and the most recent figures; and the number of inspectors engaged in the work of inspecting ships in the same years?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The number of ships registered as British ships at ports in the United Kingdom, Isle of Man and Channel Islands, on the 31st December of each of the years 1920, 1924 and 1927, was 18,616, 18,355 and 17,981 respectively. The figure for 1920 includes ships registered at ports in the whole of Ireland, and those for 1924 and 1927 exclude ships registered at ports in the Irish Free State. With reference to the second part of the question, the number of surveyors on the Marine Survey Staff of the Board of Trade in the years 1920, 1924 and 1927 was 215, 196 and 191 respectively.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the need for the thorough inspection of ships, why is there this reduction in the number of inspectors now looking after this class of work?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The inspectorate, I think is fully adequate to the duties it has to discharge. The answer to the supplementary question is two-fold; firstly, the Irish Free State is no longer under the jurisdiction of these inspectors; and, secondly, the hon. Member would be the first to admit that efficiency and activity do not necessarily depend upon numbers.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Even making allowance for the Irish Free State there is now a decrease in the number of inspectors, and, in view of the anxiety felt in many quarters as to the future inspection of ships, does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that the time is opportune for an increase in the number of inspectors?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir. I think that it would be most improper to propose an increase in the number of inspectors unless there were some evidence that the inspectors were not sufficient or adequate for the purpose.

TEA.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTANDOYLE: 66.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what proportions of the total consumption of tea in the United Kingdom were respectively of Empire and foreign production in each year since 1920?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE LISTER: The answer has been prepared in tabular form; and, if my hon. Friend agrees, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the amount of Empire-grown tea is increasing or diminishing?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: According to the last table—perhaps my hon. Friend will be able to make the calculation.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is it not a fact that since the granting of an Imperial Preference Duty on tea, the percentage of Empire-grown tea consumed in the home market has decreased?

Following 'is the answer:

The following table shows the proportions of the net quantities of tea retained for home consumption in the United Kingdom, which were entered at the preferential and full rates of duty, respectively, during each of the years 1920 to 1927.

Year.
Proportions of total net quantities retained for home consumption in the United Kingdom.


At Preferential Rate of Duty.
At Full Rate of Duty.




Per cent.
Per cent.


1920
…
86.7
l3.3


1921
…
90.5
9.5


1922
…
88.0
12.0


1923
…
88.0
12.0


1024
…
88.3
14.7


J925
…
86.9
13.1


1926
…
84.2
15.8


1927
…
82.4
17.6

NOTE.—Prior to 1st April, 1923, the date upon which the above figures are based included the net quantities of Tea retained for consumption in the whole of Ireland. From this date the quantities retained for consumption in the Irish Free State are excluded.

POST OFFICE

CHRISTMAS MAILS.

Mr. SANDEMAN: 71.
asked the Postmaster-General what arrangements are being made to deal with the Christmas mails?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): The arrangements will be on the same general lines as in recent years. There will be a delivery of letters and parcels in most towns in England and Wales on Sunday, 23rd December; and there will be no delivery on Boxing Day. If the public will assist the Post Office by posting all parcels not later than Saturday morning, and all letters and cards for places at any distance in time for the last collection on Saturday, I anticipate no difficulty in ensuring delivery by Christmas Day; it will not be safe to post on Sunday except for local delivery and for places at a comparatively short distance.

WIRELESS AND CABLE SERVICES.

Mr. TINNE: 72.
asked the Postmaster-General what, if any, steps are being taken to safeguard the interests of the British West Indian Colonies and British Guiana when the Pacific Cable Board's West Indian telegraph system is transferred to the Communications Company; whether the contributions made by those Colonies towards annual deficits, if any, will cease to be payable when the transfer is effected; and whether the Communications Company will be asked to give an assurance that the entire West Indian cable system will be maintained and developed, even though it may in certain sections be unremunerative?

Mr. AMERY: I have been asked to answer this question. The general arrangements for safeguarding the public interests will apply to the West Indian telegraph system, but I am not in a position to make a detailed statement on the subject at present. With regard to the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to Section 3 of the Imperial Telegraphs Bill.

Mr. WELLOCK: Is it not significant that these fears have been manifested within three days of the passing of this Bill?

Mr. AMERY: No, Sir.

Mr. BENN: Will the West Indian interests be protected under the contract that we understand is being made?

Mr. AMERY: Naturally, the arrangements for safeguarding the interests of the public will apply to the West Indies as well as to any other part.

Mr. BENN: I did not ask any of those questions. I asked whether the interests of the West Indies in communications will be protected under the contract.

Mr. AMERY: The contract will contain general provisions for protection, and will also protect West Indian interests.

UNEMPLOYMENT (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS).

Mr. LAWSON: 76.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is prepared to postpone the operation of the transition Sections of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1927?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): I would refer the hon. Member to my statement on the matter in the course of the Debate on the Unemployment Insurance Bill, to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement on unemployment did not answer the question at all, and that he has given us nothing definite? Does he intend to postpone the operation of these Sections?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I can give no other answer than that which I gave before, which was that we propose nearer the time to have an investigation which will enable Members of this House to get an approximate idea as to what the effect of the 30-contributions condition will be. In the light of that, I have every hope that there will be no need to postpone the proposal.

BRITISH ARMY.

ROYAL MILITARY ACADEMY AND ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE.

Lieut.-Colonel WINDSOR-CLIVE: 77.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether any changes in the system of education at the Royal Military Academy
and Royal Military College are under consideration; and, if so, what is the nature of those changes?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Last year the syllabus of instruction at the Royal Military Academy was revised with a view to providing a more general education than had previously been given. The question whether any change should be made at the Royal Military College is under consideration.

TWENTY-FOUR HOUR SCHEME.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 79.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the Army makes use of the 24-hour system in connection with its duties?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: Yes, Sir, in certain limited directions. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the Army Order which deals with the matter.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS (BOLIVIA AND PARAGUAY).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 80.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can report any action by the Council of the League of Nations in reference to the threatened dispute between Bolivia and Paraguay?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): On the 11th of December the Council unanimously adopted a resolution for communication to the two Governments by the President of the Council. The text was as follows:
The Council of the League of Nations meeting at Lugano for its 53rd session expresses its full conviction that the incidents which have occurred between the two members of the League of Nations will not he-come more serious. It does not doubt that the two States which, by signing the Covenant have solemnly pledged themselves to seek by pacific means the solution of disputes arising between them, will have recourse to such methods as would be in conformity with their international obligations and would appear in the actual circumstances to be most likely to insure, together with the maintenance of peace, the settlement of their disputes.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Has any reply been received?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Not that I know of.

ROYAL NAVY.

ENLISTMENTS.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 81.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many applications for enlistment in the Royal Navy have been made during the year 1928, and how many men were accepted?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): Information as to the number of applications for entry is not at present available. The numbers finally entered from the 1st of January to the 30th of September, 1928, are as follows: Royal Navy, 969 men, 1,371 boys; Royal Marines, 239.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Will the Parliamentary Secretary be good enough to send me the figure when it is available?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Yes.

DOCKYARDS (BOOKSTALLS).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 82.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any decision has yet been reached regarding the question as to whether the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes are to undertake the conduct of all bookstalls in His Majesty's dockyards and naval establishments?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The whole question of the management of bookstalls is under consideration, but I can assure the hon. Member that the Admiralty have no intention of granting a monopoly to the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes in the conduct of bookstalls in His Majesty's dockyards and naval establishments.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: May I ask if the Board of Admiralty will bear in mind the interests of local tradesmen, who have performed this work for many years?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The Board of Admiralty always bear that in mind.

TWENTY-FOUR HOUR SYSTEM.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 83.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the 24-hour system is made use of in the Navy in connection with its duties?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The answer is in the affirmative.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact that this system has been in use in the Navy for over three centuries?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: It was certainly in use during the War.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (SILICOSIS).

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 9.
asked the Home Secretary whether the regulations for granting compensation to men disabled by silicosis will provide for those cases where total disability has already proved to be due to this form of occupational disease?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, Sir. I am advised that I should have no power under the Act to give this scheme any such retrospective application.

Mr. GRENFELL: Having regard to the trivial cost, will not the Home Secretary include the claims of these men who are suffering so much? The number would be very few.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I know: but I have no power under the Act of Parliament.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. A. HENDERSON: May I ask if the Prime Minister is in a position to state the business of the House for next week?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Commander Eyres Monsell): The Prime Minister has been called out of the House for a moment, and perhaps I may be allowed to answer.

On Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday we shall take the second, third and fourth Allotted Days in Committee on the Local Government Bill.

On Thursday, we hope to take the Motion for the Christmas Adjournment.

On any other day, if there is time, other Orders will be taken.

Mr. HENDERSON: May I ask whether the Parliamentary Secretary is in a position to say when the House will resume after the Christmas Recess?

The PRIME MINISTER: I apologise for not being here when the right hon. Member put his question regarding business. With regard to his last question, I would rather not say anything at the moment, but I hope to be in a position to give him a definite reply on Monday, if he will put the question then.

FOOTBALL COMPETITIONS (LETTER).

Sir RENNELL RODD: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether any guidance or advice can be given hon. Members with regard to a letter which, to my knowledge, has been addressed to several bon. Members of this House, and which appears to be something in the nature of a circular letter, probably addressed to them all by the Editor of a London newspaper. The letter is as follows:
You are doubtless aware of the intense feeling of resentment there is in this country over the stoppage of football competitions, an entirely harmless pastime, the revival of which is awaited by millions of voters. The feeling is so strong that it is bound to express itself in the coming Election. This is not a question of party politics at all for Conservative and Labour Members are working shoulder to shoulder for the restoration of football competitions. It is our desire, for the information of our 500,000 readers, to know what side you are on in this great issue and I shall be grateful if you will be so kind as to post me the enclosed card indicating your attitude. Should we have no reply we shall assume that you are against the revival of football competitions.
The announcement that the feeling of millions of voters is likely to be expressed on this subject at the coming Elections and the desire to be able to announce to the public what side hon. Members are going to take, coupled with the expression that failure to reply will be taken to mean that they disapprove of these football competitions, appears to me to be something rather in the nature of a threat or menace to pillory or prejudice them in the eyes of the electors, and, therefore, to constitute a dangerous precedent.

Mr. SPEAKER: The letter which the right hon. Member has read has been brought to my notice. It does not appear to me to be one on which I can take any action, nor does it appear to be one which raises any specific question of Privilege. If it is of any interest to hon. Members, I received one myself.

HON. MEMBERS: What did you do with it?

Mr. SPEAKER: I put it in the waste paper basket.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (REGULATIONS).

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a matter which is a Parliamentary one? The Minister of Health laid on the Table of the House on the 5th December a very long set of regulations—National Health Insurance, Medical Benefit (Consolidated) Regulations. It has to be laid for 21 Parliamentary days. It is not a Command Paper. Up to the present no Member of the public is able to obtain a copy from the Stationery Office, and on inquiry I am told that it cannot be ready for printing until the 17th December. I want to ask whether in the circumstances you could advise that in a case of this kind that the Paper should be re-laid so that Members can have an adequate opportunity of examining lengthy regulations of 70 pages and so be able to exercise properly and fully their Parliamentary privilege?

Mr. SPEAKER: I understand that it was held by my predecessors that the days count from the day on which it is available to hon. Members.

Mr. ALEXANDER: It is a matter of principle. It has been said on previous occasions that if a copy is filed in the Library it is available for Members, but I submit that when you are dealing with Consolidated Regulations of 70 pages, and there is only one copy filed in the Library, not a Command Paper for hon. Members to consult, that it is an impossibility for the parliamentary privilege of revision during the 21 days to be exercised.

Mr. SPEAKER: The 21 days count when the full copy is available for hon. Members in the Library.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Do they count if one copy is available, or is it your ruling that a copy must be available For all hon. Members in the Vote Office?

Mr. SPEAKER: That would be so. When the copy is available.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[1st ALLOTTED DAY.]

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Transfer of functions of Poor Law authorities).

The CHAIRMAN: The first five Amendments on the Paper are out of order or out of place. The two Amendments which follow them are both in order. They apparently raise the same point. I propose to call both of them. They should be discussed together, but it may be necessary to have two Divisions.

Mr. R. HUDSON: May I respectfully suggest that for the convenience of the House the custom adopted on previous Bills be followed here, and that the Amendments be numbered?

The CHAIRMAN: That matter was considered by Mr. Speaker previously, but he decided not to make a general order. It is hardly a matter for me to deal with.

Mr. A. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, after the word "borough," to insert the words
or the council of a borough or urban district with a population of not less than twenty thousand.
The object of this Amendment is to transfer the functions of the Poor Law authorities to other kinds of local authorities besides the counties and county boroughs. We regard with apprehension the transfer of Poor Law functions to many of the county councils in England and Wales. Our view is that Poor Law functions are of two kinds—those which are properly exercisable by local authorities, and those which are national in their character. It is not possible for me now to deal with the latter, but assuming that it would be possible for us on subsequent Amendments, to transfer from the bodies which take over Poor Law functions the responsibility for the unemployed, we then believe that the Poor Law functions that remain might well be exercised by bodies within the county areas, and not merely by the county councils themselves. I
think that hon. Members will agree with me when I say that, owing to many serious and real difficulties, the county councils are the least representative of our local governing bodies. They are remote from the great masses of the people. The responsibilities of membership of county councils are very considerable. The expense of travelling is also an item of great importance, and it is undoubtedly true that people who might well serve on a local authority nearer home, find it utterly impossible to become members of county councils. The result is that in the county areas the big majority of the members are drawn from a very narrow section of society, and that the representation of bodies of working people is almost negligible, except perhaps in three or four of the county councils of England and Wales.
It seems to us that in the exercise of Poor Law functions it is important that real authority should rest with bodies on which people drawn from the classes that are most likely to need assistance can serve. The county councils, I believe, are the worst possible bodies to act as Poor Law authorities. I do not complain of the county boroughs, because they fulfil the test which I lay down, namely, that the county borough councils at least are bodies which consist of members who are familiar with the limited area which they administer. Of the counties that cannot be said. Poor Law service, 'particularly home assistance, is intimate and personal, and there is therefore a good deal to be said for bodies of the type of the borough councils and the urban district councils. In the great county of Lancashire there is a number of non-county boroughs and urban districts, which, I think the Minister of Health won't' admit, are wc11 administered, and which might well exercise the Poor Law powers which this Bill proposes to transfer to the counties.
I believe that the administration of the Poor Law would be more effective in every way, and, I would add, more sympathetic to the real needs of the poor, if it were in the hands of the non-county boroughs and the large urban, districts, rather than in the hands of a very distant county authority at Preston. In my own constituency there are two municipal boroughs, both non-county and both of them well administered. They
are bodies which are eminently fitted to carry out the proposed transfer of functions. If the Minister should reply that there would be difficulties with regard to institutional treatment of the poor, I would say that there are provisions in his own Bill to deal with that side of the case. I am not suggesting that all urban district councils should carry out all Poor Law functions. Certain kinds of institutional treatment could he more efficiently administered by a combination of authorities. For that the Minister makes provision in the Bill.
There is some question as to where exactly we should draw the line. I am no supporter of the municipal boroughs with a population of 2,000, but it is possible to take a figure which would include within it all the authorities that are large enough to carry out the Poor Law service. It is a question whether it should be a population of 20,000 or of 50,000. My own view is that 50,000 puts the line of demarcation rather too high and rules out from the exercise of Poor Law duties many local authorities that could well and effectively carry them out. We have taken the figure of 20,000 because the Minister himself has given us a precedent. In Clause 29 rights are given to certain urban district councils to maintain county roads:
Where an urban district has a population exceeding 20,000 according to the last census for the time being, the urban district council may claim to exercise the functions of maintenance and repair of any county road within their district.
4.0 p.m.
That line of demarcation of 20,000 seems to us to be a very suitable mark to determine which authorities should he Poor Law bodies and which should not. That is why in the Amendment we have confined the exercise of Poor Law functions to the councils of county boroughs and the councils of boroughs or urban districts with a population of not less than 20,000. I believe that many Members on the opposite side of the Committee will feel that the impersonal character of the county council for services of this kind makes them unfit for the exercise of Poor Law duties, and that they will sympathise with the view contained in this Amendment. Many of these smaller authorities do really represent the best in our local government life, and it is a blow
in the face, an implied insult, that in the transfer of powers they should have been overlooked and placed in a position of subordination to the county councils. I believe, without arguing this Amendment at length, that we shall meet with a good deal of support in all quarters of the Committee, and I hope that the Minister will break away from the theory of his Department with regard to counties and county boroughs, and will realise that in this enormous transfer of powers that is being made, it would be to the public advantage to hand over these very important powers to the smaller administrative authorities which do not happen to be either counties or county boroughs.

Mr. HARNEY: I understand, Mr. Hope, that you are taking this Amendment and the Amendment in my name together. The only real difference between the two Amendments is that mine makes the unit 50,000 instead of 20,000, and also applies to rural areas as well as urban areas and non-county boroughs. I would like to call attention, first, to the fact that this 50,000 unit has been recommended by the Maclean Committee. I do not think it would be necessary to move this Amendment had the Bill in effect really broken up the Poor Law, had it really transferred or given us an opportunity of transferring, the able-bodied poor from the Poor Law to the national purse. In those circumstances it would have been quite unnecessary to put forward Amendments of this kind, for this reason. If the Poor Law had gone, if the able-bodied unemployed had gone, and if the provisions in Clause 4, mentioning a number of Acts of Parliament that now are applicable to the giving of medical and other assistance to non-paupers, were made applicable to giving assistance to paupers, there would have been such a small amount left that it would not have been really worth while keeping in existence anybody to carry out the functions now carried out by the boards of guardians. Since, however, you have left with the Poor Law this large number of able-bodied unemployed—I believe that the full number with their dependants is very nearly 500,000—and since you have given the localities a large number of persons that must somehow be provided for, it seems to be
absurd to place a town with a population of over 50,000 in any worse position as regards the administration of the able-bodied poor than a county borough.
If the Committee look 'at the population of some of the towns, the figures will be found to be very striking. Take the non-county boroughs—Luton, 57,000; Cambridge, 59,000; Chesterfield, 61,000; Stockton-on-Tees, 64,000; Leyton, 128,000; Ealing, 89,000.Now take urban districts — in Essex, Walthamstow,129,000; in Lancashire, Stretford, 52,000; in Middlesex, Tottenham,149,000;Willesden, 165,000; and in Wales, Rhondda, 162,000. In the rural districts you have, in Durham, the county where my own constituency is, Auckland, 61,000; and Easington, 75,000. These non-county and rural area towns are larger than many of the county boroughs. Where is the justification for saying we are going to leave the able-bodied poor to the district if it happens to answer the description of a county borough, but that we will not leave it, to the district, though it is much larger, though it contains, in essence, all the elements that justify leaving the able-bodied poor to the district at all, because does not 'answer the technical description of a county borough? That is wholly unreasonable.
These boundaries of county boroughs and counties have not been established at all with a view to the purposes for which a Bill like this is framed. Whatever may be said against the unions, they were, at all events, framed with a view to giving relief to the poor. What was considered by those who fixed the unit was manageable areas, manageable populations, convenience of getting to the market centres, and so on, but the boundaries of the county councils were fixed for purposes wholly foreign to the purpose under consideration. If you are to take as the units, areas that were fixed, not with regard to the purpose in view at all, some with immense populations, some with small populations, some with great areas, some with small areas, some with diverse and some with homogeneous industries—if you are to fix it in that way, because of some heavenly virtues in these ancient boundaries, then the areas of non-county boroughs, and urban and rural districts with a population of 50,000 should be put on exactly the same footing, and not forced to throw
in their lot with an immense administrative county where there would be great difficulties arising.

Mr. PALIN: I rise to support the Amendment, because I believe the success or non-success of the Measure, as far as it relates to the Poor Law, will depend very largely on the bodies that are to be created to administer it. If it is necessary to put some trust in the borough councils and the urban district councils for the oversight of roads, how much more important is it to entrust those bodies with the oversight of human beings. We are discussing now what people shall have the confidence of the community to act as guardians of the poor. I cannot imagine a more sacred or a more important duty to be placed upon any citizen than that of a guardian of the poor—not a guardian of the national funds or of the local rates, but a person who will undertake the duty, not from the point of view of the amount of money or other relief tat can be given to a person, but who will take an interest in the poor, to see how their lot can be alleviated; not merely to administer a scale laid down by the Minister of so many shillings a day, or so many loaves of bread, or how many hundredweight of stone shall be broken in order to qualify for relief, but to take a real, human interest in the people who, unfortunately, have to appeal to others for their sustenance in the time of distress. If you are going to remove the poor people too far from those who have to minister to their necessities, the duty will become automatic, cast-iron, soulless, no element of Christian charity will be attached to it, and the evil reputation which has attached to the Poor Law up to now will be nothing to the evil reputation which must attach to such a body as is now going to he created.
As a matter of fact, if we are really in earnest, we want to create some body which will endeavour not only to relieve the necessities but to prevent that destitution which compels people to come under the care of the guardians, and I know one one better fitted than these borough councils who have the confidence of the people. As far as the county boroughs are concerned, I have very great confidence that all will go well. There will be practically no co-option in county boroughs. But, as far as the
counties are concerned, the care of the poor is going to devolve upon people who have no responsibility to anybody. That is the main evil about the Clause. We know the difficulty now with regard to county councils like the West Riding of Yorkshire, at any rate. The area is too big. There are a few people who live within convenient distances of the county town, and. do all the donkey work. Then the backwoodsmen come down from the moors to the monthly meeting and simply turn down everything. We are taking the responsibility from the borough councils who live amongst the people, are responsible to the people, know their lives and can assist them, and who, eventually, may be able to show us the way to a Measure much superior to this one, which will really create guardians of the poor who will really guard them and assist them, and enable us to bring, as I say, an element of Christian charity which ought to animate these bodies. I am afraid that this Clause will not merely stereotype the existing Poor Law, but make it worse than it is to-day.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): I think the Committee will realise that these two Amendments, which, as the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) has pointed out, differ in degree rather than in kind, are very serious. In fact they are so serious that, if either of them were carried, it would to a large extent destroy one of the principles upon which this part of the Bill is founded. I was a little surprised to hear the view expressed by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) that county councils were the worst possible bodies for the administration of Poor Law services because that was one of the recommendations in the Minority Report of the Royal Commission, on which the party opposite were represented by an hon. Member who now ornaments the Front Bench opposite. [HON. MEMBERS: "How long ago?"] The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) does not change his opinions quite so rapidly as hon. Members would appear to suppose, and I have no reason to believe that at the present day he is at all disposed to throw overboard the opinion which he expressed at that time. The arguments
which have been used seem to ignore two things—first, the provisions of Clause 6, and, secondly, the financial implications of the proposed change. if I may address myself first to the financial side of the question, I would point out that it is because, at present, we find that areas with comparatively small financial resources are placed in great difficulties by reason of the fact that the charges for Poor Law are apt to fluctuate so violently, that we have decided that the area of charge must be widened.
The whole difficulty with both these Amendments is that they go exactly in the contrary direction and try to stereotype, at any rate to a considerable extent, the very difficulty which we are endeavouring to overcome. Of course, as between 20,000 population and 50,000 population, there is a considerable difference. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne sought to justify the introduction of the limit of 20,000 by reference to Clause 29. If is quite true that in Clause 29 a distinction is made between urban districts with populations of 20,000 and those with less and in that, of course, we are following out the recommendations of the Royal Commission. But the hon. Member did not draw attention to the fact that the financial responsibility under Clause 29 remains with the county council. That makes all the difference because the hon. Member is not here proposing to leave the financial responsibility with the county council and simply to have the work of administration given to districts with populations of 20,000. He is placing those comparatively small authorities in exactly the same position as the county council or the county borough council. He is giving them financial responsibility and, of course, liability. That makes all the difference in the world. When I come to the question of the larger number the Report of the Maclean Committee which the hon. Member quoted is quite clear as to its recommendations, I think have the relevant passage here:
We recommend the abolition of the boards of guardians and of the Poor Law unions and the merging of all the functions of the Poor Law authorities in those of the county councils and the county borough councils, subject to the necessary modifications set out in our scheme for London and other administrative counties.
Therefore, the recommendation of the Maclean Committee was that the functions which are here to be transferred, should be transferred, not to these smaller districts but to the county councils and the county boroughs. I am quite aware of another recommendation of the Maclean Committee that urban districts or non-county boroughs, with populations of 50,000, should be converted into county boroughs, hut two things have happened since then to which I call the attention of the Committee. In the first place, this question has been re-examined by another Royal Commission, sitting much later, and they have recommended that the figure should be raised from 50,000 to 75,000. That is the first point. The second point, which is even more pointedly directed to the proposal before us, is that we have to consider the situation now in the light of the de-rating proposals. What is the effect upon local authorities of the de-rating proposals? It is, of course, to narrow the field which is open ho them for the raising of rates and, therefore, a charge or liability which formerly would have been spread over the whole of the existing field of rateable value must be concentrated upon a reduced rateable value after the de-rating proposals have taken effect. That is a very important point. It emphasises and magnifies the difficulties which already exist and that alone is sufficient to make it quite impossible for us to accept an Amendment which would throw upon these bodies, with their reduced rateable valuation, the liabilities for Poor Law administration.
On that ground alone, I say that the Committee ought not to accept this Amendment in the light of the whole of the considerations which have led us to adopt the proposals of the Bill. But then, is it a fact that the county councils, acting as they will under the provisions of the Bill, are the remote bodies to which the hon. Member for West Newcastle (Mr. Palin) alluded? Is it a fact that they will lay down the whole system of administration, that they will carry it out entirely themselves, and keep it in their own hands? That view ignores entirely the provisions of Clause 6. We do not contemplate that the county council should themselves, at their own place of meeting, carry on all the business of the administration of the Poor Law services. Of course that would be
quite impossible and unreasonable. We have made ample provision for seeing that there is decentralisation, and, indeed, it is quite possible that under the provisions of Clause 6 county councils may select some of these areas with larger populations as units of local administration and as areas in which will be set up the local guardians committees.
Then they will be, if not in precisely the same position, in very nearly the same position as those bodies under Clause 29 to which reference has been made. That is to say, they will be carrying out the actual work of the administration but, of course, they will be subject to the financial policy and control of the county council and that I think is very desirable. It means not that we have to refer every little detail to a body sitting in some place which nobody can get at, but it means that we can have the advantage of the local knowledge and the personal touch to which hon. Members opposite rightly attach considerable importance. I think, therefore, that in the provisions which are set forth in the Bill we are preserving the essential features, as regards the spread of the charge and the financial responsibility over the larger area, and, at the same time, we are making adequate provision for the maintenance of that local knowledge and local experience and local sympathy which is what we all desire.

Miss LAWRENCE: I forecast the answer which the Minister would give on Clause 1 when I read through the first part of the table of contents of this Bill. It is perfectly obvious that this whole matter depends on Part VI of the Bill, and my very first criticism was that it world be impossible to debate rationally the first Clause until the House had disposed of the complicated provisions of Pan; VI. Now it is perfectly true that the provisions of Part VI make it impossible for these districts to hold up their heads or even, as I think, to perform their ordinary duties and the fault is not in de-rating. It is not de-rating which will make these places so poor, it is the altogether artificial formula of distribution which Parliament has not yet discussed. It is clear that the difficulty of the minor authorities is the difficulty of distribution. It is also true that the Minister's plan of redistribution would so sap the resources of some dis-
tricts that they could not carry on. Take the case of Rugby where the rates will be raised by 1s. 2d. in the £, or Bacup 1s. 6d., or Colne 1s. 0¼d., or Berwick-on-Tweed 2s. 8d., or Seaham Harbour 2s. 9d. The Minister has created a class of new poor and is proceeding to deal with that matter by eliminating them. That is the whole force of his argument. If Parliament passes, not the de-rating Clauses but the Clauses which follow, local authorities, urban councils, district councils and non-county boroughs will have their finances dealt with in such a fashion that they will hardly be able to administer their functions.
We have in Clause 1 the ignoring of the larger boroughs and urban districts which was no part of the Maclean Report. We had the Poor Law Report of 1909; we had the whole country talking about it for nine years; we then had the Maclean Report to review the situation and to arrive at something which was considered more or less an agreement and a compromise. The Maclean Report speaks of boroughs and urban districts of over 50,000 population as suitable Poor Law units and so they are. Who can say that towns mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) are not reasonable units for this function—towns like Cambridge or Rugby and urban districtslike Barking or those great urban aggregations in the East of London? But they are to be melted into the county under this Bill. Why? The reason is that it is on Part VI—and this is a superfluity of naughtiness on the part of the Minister…it is on Part VI that everything depends, after which all the provisions are consequential. That is the position. If we do as the larger towns are asking us to do, we shall have to alter the formula for distribution and I do not know that that is a disadvantage but rather an advantage. We arc obliged, however, to ignore all considerations of the proper functions of given areas, to sacrifice all considerations of obtaining homogeneous units of local government in order to cut and chop the local authorities so as to fit in with the scheme devised in Part VI of the Bill. Having pointed that out, I must not seek to amend Part VI of the Bill now. I may not put down amendments to Part VI and discuss them before Part I, otherwise I
should be going outside even the indulgence of the Chairman. Therefore, I can only point out this matter, and having done so leave it to the Committee.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: I found the reply of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health singularly unconvincing. The Maclean Report recommends that in the case of administrative counties other than London, boroughs and urban districts having a population exceeding 50,000 should be in the same position of autonomy as if they were county boroughs. That is what we propose in our Amendment, and the Minister evades the issue. It shows up incidentally what we consider to be the vice of his proposals. There is no necessary connection between the county as an area of administration and the financial proposals of the Bill. With regard to de-rating, if the Minister will accept Amendments on the Paper to cut out the arrangements about the loss of rates from the Bill, and restore to each rating authority what it loses, the whole of his argument is blown away. We are not here to discuss the financial proposals, and the Minister cannot evade the merits or demerits of the Amendments on this Clause by referring to his own artificial finance, which we shall discuss 10 days hence. Let him address his mind to the actual facts. It is not the fact that the proposal in this Clause in every case widens the area of charge. There are quite a number of areas which will be smaller and not larger after these proposals.
Indeed, if the Minister had taken the Committee into his confidence and given the facts, the Committee would have known facts like these: Here is Canterbury, which is a county borough with a population of 24,450, and it will be an autonomous unit for Poor Law purposes. I see the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet) in his place. Here is Swindon, which, is very near the borders of his constituency. Swindon is a non-county borough with a population of 54,920. By what process of reasoning can it be justified that Canterbury, an ancient city and therefore a county borough, with a population of only 24,450, is a suitable unit to administer the whole of these functions and bear the financial burdens imposed on it by de-rating or the charges coming from these functions, and Swin-
don, with 54,920 people, is not? Oxford is a county borough with 57,000 population, and it can exercise these functions and have its own elected Poor Law Committee inside its own borders, but Cambridge, a non-county borough with a population of 59,260, cannot. By what process of reasoning does the Minister expect us to decide this issue on the merits of the proposal? Is or is not the county borough the right unit of administration? I submit that that is the issue that we have to decide, and not the vice or the virtue as it may be of the Minister's financial proposals. I believe the Maclean Report was right. It recommended that every non-county borough and urban district with over 50,000 should have autonomy. We go a little further and bring in rural districts, because it may be news to some hon. Members that there are five rural districts with more than 50,000 population and one with more than 100,000, and we bring them in because we believe that we ought to consider the merits of the unit if the administration is to be sound.
What are the facts? As the Amendment is now drafted, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood), we find that there are 96 non-county boroughs, 83 urban districts, and 87 rural districts with over 20,000 population; there are 12 non-county boroughs, six urban districts, and five rural districts with a population between 50,000 and 100,000; and there are one non-county borough and four urban districts with over 100,000. I suggest that the Minister, in making the county the unit—it may be convenient for the purposes of drafting the Bill—has got the wrong unit for his own purposes, and I suggest that he should take this Amendment following the recommendation of the Maclean Report. If you make up to each rating authority what it loses by way of de-rating, it will be in the same financial position that it is in now to meet the obligations cast upon it in the future. I wish the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir G. Hamilton) were here, because Ilford with a population of 85,191, will have a great deal to say in answer to the refusal of the Minister to treat it as an autonomous body for the administration of the Poor Law.
It is our desire, in the administration of this Measure, to see that the maximum number of popularly elected authorities are responsible for the administration of the Poor Law, and surely it is not asking too much to ask that if the Minister cannot take the first and wider Amendment, he should adopt the recommendation of the Maclean Report in this case, because I know that at other stages of the Bill he will constantly be throwing at our heads other recommendations of the Maclean Report. We have ventured to get in our blow first, and if he refuses to meet our blow, chosen from the Maclean Report, I hope he will not expect us to take the words of that Report with the weight that the Parliamentary Secretary suggested, in recent speeches, that he expects us to give to it. I can see no logical reason, apart from the artificial finance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for not accepting the proposal that 50,000 and more, whether county borough, non-county borough, urban district, or rural district, should be the financially effective unit for the administration of these functions.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: May h take the case from a point of view that has not occurred to the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown)? He sees the only objection to his Amendment as being financial, but I should like to put forward the point of view—it is only one of several, 'but it is an important one—of the public health side of the question. It is from that side that this matter has been largely discussed in previous years, it is from that point of view that the Royal Commission on the Poor Law, amongst others, very strongly went for the county area as the unit of administration, and it is from that point of view that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) has advocated the larger area again and again. It is not necessary to give a series of detailed reasons for it, but if hon. Members will only consider what the proposals for breaking up the Poor Law, as they are called, really entail, if those who are in favour of that course will remember that the idea was to deal, not simply with the Poor Law as such, but with the causes of poverty, one of the chief of which is the question of health—

The CHAIRMAN: Clause I deals only with the Poor Law.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: The question of the Poor Law includes questions of health. One of the objects of the reform of the Poor Law as in this Bill is to deal with the causes of poverty, and that is extended in Clause 4. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, in opening the discussion, admitted the principle in suggesting that the government of institutions should be left in the hands of the county authority. The Committee realises quite clearly that it is not merely institutional treatment that is concerned, but that you have to deal with the question of health on broad lines. The question arises not only in an institution, but before people go in, and after they come out. Then, again, there are a large number of questions of maternity which cannot be dealt with easily—

The CHAIRMAN: That question must be postponed until Clause 4.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I will not go into further details, but I will only say that if you adopted the proposals in either of these two Amendments that are put forward, you would be eliminating very largely from the main purposes of the Bill the essential factors in several of the conditions that must be treated over a large area.

Mr. E. BROWN: How can the hon. and gallant Member justify that statement, in view of the fact that Rutland, a county with 18,000 population, gets the powers, and Cambridge, a non-county borough with 59,000, does not?

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I admit that there are great anomalies, but Clause 39 gives power constantly, and immediately to a certain extent, to rectify those anomalies. We are not dealing with those Clauses now, however, and we have to deal on the whole with the average of authorities. As the Chairman has said that I cannot discuss the matter in detail, I will only add that from every point of view on the health side, and from many other points of view, so long as you keep the arrangement by which you can also use local experience wherever possible, as you do in this Bill, it is necessary to have the larger co-ordinating factor under the county authority. I shall object very strongly to either of these Amendments.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I would plead that the discussion of this Clause might be adjourned until we have considered the financial provisions. I fear that we are going on wrong lines here, and I want to make this such a Bill that the people of this country can accept it. I was a member of a county council for 25 years, and I was a member of a board of guardians for 22 years, and I found in my own experience that either of those bodies was enough for one man. The county council, in my humble judgment, cannot do the work that the guardians have done, in the semi-rural parts of such counties as my own. Take an urban area such as has been mentioned, with a population six times that of the county of Rutland, and the whole of its population is to be handed over to the county council. There cannot be any justice in that, and, as has been pointed out by other speakers, further anomalies will arise, because we are changing from one position to another. The Poor Law ought to be in the hands of a properly elected body. I fear co-option. I have had something to do with co-option in connection with education, and I have found that on every occasion it does not work well. My experience has been that where people were there because they were county councillors, they had no power, and it worked out that we transacted what we had to do after they had left; and the same thing will occur in regard to the Poor Law. Self-respecting people will refuse to be co-opted, because they will have such little power on the Committee as compared with the local people.I think you are bound to get things far worse by this Bill than they are at the present time. The duties of county councils are sufficiently growing without these new duties being imposed upon them. Let us have the Poor Law guardians, and we will see to it that the people do not suffer.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I am surprised at the observations which have been made by the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. R. Richardson) and by the hon. Member for Nelson and Coble (Mr. Greenwood). They are now, apparently, taking up the attitude that the functions and duties of the Poor Law guardians should
not be transferred to the county councils and the county borough councils. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne said that he viewed with the greatest possible apprehension the fact that the functions of the Poor Law guardians were to be transferred to these larger authorities, and he has been going up and down the country saying that it will be a retrograde step to make the transfer because the larger authorities are manned by Tory majorities. I wonder how long that has been the policy of the Labour party. Comparatively a short time ago the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb), who speaks with as much authority as anybody in this House on this matter, moved a Resolution which, as I understand it, had the support of the Labour party and of most Members of the House.

Mr. SIDNEY WEBB: Will the right hon. Gentleman read it?

Sir K. WOOD: It is a very long Resolution. I would remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that I am endeavouring to deal with the objections that have been made by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne to the transfer of the functions of the guardians to the larger authorities, and I want to remind the Committee that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham in this Resolution—and the right hon. Gentleman can quote after me the other portions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Read the whole of it!"] The most salient point of the Resolution is that these functions should be transferred to the county, borough and district councils, so that if ever a party were committed up to the hilt to the transfer of the functions of the Poor Law guardians to the larger authorities, it is the Labour party.

Mr. WEBB: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he suggests that this Resolution had anything to do with the transfer of the Poor Law? If he will read it through, he will see that the Poor Law disappears. The right hon. Gentleman really surpasses all the laws of decency, for in that Resolution not a word is said about the transfer of the Poor Law.

Sir K. WOOD: The right hon. Gentleman is endeavouring to do what, I notice, the Labour party as a whole are en-
deavouring to do; they are now trying to say that because we give the option in this Bill— [Interruption]—that because in the Bill it is permissive upon the larger local authorities to say whether or not they shall adopt themselves as Poor Law authorities—

Mr. WEBB: Not all of them.

Sir K. WOOD: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me—[Intterruption]—I am sorry to create such disorder in fie party opposite. What they are now saying is that because that is not completely done, they are not committed to tile abolition of the guardians, and on that account, therefore, they must be excused from supporting their previous recommendation. I read on a previous occasion the Resolution passed by the last Labour Conference on this matter at the instance of the hon. Lady the Member for East Ham, North (Miss. Lawrence), who said that that was the very first step that should be taken, namely, that the Poor Law guardians should be abolished as the first step to other matters.

Miss LAWRENCE: The right hon. Gentleman must quote correctly. What we said was, first take out the able-bodied and then the aged; then take out the widows and orphans and the sick; and then abolish the boards of guardians, and the Poor Law would go.

Sir' K. WOOD: Unfortunately, that is not what the Resolution says. I quoted the Resolution on the last occasion, and I can a remember it. We can discuss it on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." It was distinctly said that the abolition of the boards of guardians was a preliminary step; therefore, there can be no question that the Labour party is as much committed as any other party to the transfer to larger authorities. We come to the suggestion that other authorities should be included. It is urged, first, that authorities with 20,000 population should be one of the entities; and then that entities of 50,000 should be included. To adopt the first suggestion would mean increasing the number' of Poor Law areas contemplated in this Bill from 144 to 306. If the other Amendment were carried, it would mean increasing the number of authorities from 144 to 193. Anyone would say
that that is a definitely retrograde step. I can say, from my own knowledge, that the view of a great number of Poor Law guardians, while they naturally object to the abolition of their office, is that it is the right thing to widen the areas.

Mr. E. BROWN: Not in all cases.

Sir K. WOOD: I am saying in a certain number.

Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: Is there any protection for the Committee, in view of the fact that we are working under a Guillotine of the sharpest kind, against all the limited time being exhausted by superfluous and misleading speeches from the Front Bench?

The CHAIRMAN: When I am apprised that the hypothesis put forward by the bon. Member is true, I will deal with the situation.

Mr. BENN: So it would be competent for the Minister to speak first, and to occupy the whole time until you are forced to put the Question?

The CHAIRMAN: If the right hon. Gentleman were speaking irrelevantly or was guilty of vain repetition, I should stop him.

Mr. BECKETT: When the Time-Table Motion was introduced, we were told that it was in order that the Opposition might concentrate attention on criticism, and when there is to be a discussion on the particular question of the able-bodied poor, which the Minister does not wish to discuss, he is wasting time.

Sir K. WOOD: I will endeavour to meet the wishes of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I do want to refute some of the extraordinary misstatements that have been made, and to say that anyone who has given consideration to this matter, both in connection with the area of charge in the Poor Law, and the area of charge in highway administration, must come to the conclusion that the real hope of the heavily burdened areas is for the area of charge to be greatly extended. Unless that were done, you could not bring that effective and just relief which ought to be brought to some of these areas. Surely hon. Gentlemen opposite will not say that it is not a proper thing to have regard to the de-rating proposals in connection
with this Bill. As I understand it, they have come to the conclusion now that agricultural relief should be given in the way indicated by the Government. If that is to be done, they must have regard to it in the general proposals of the Bill, and, therefore, it is not an unfair thing for my right hon. Friend to say that they must also be taken into account in dealing with this matter. Finally, in connection with the figure of 50,000 population, you must take into consideration the recommendations that have been made by the Royal Commission that the figure of future county boroughs must be raised to 75,000. This would not be a fit and proper Amendment to be incorporated in this Bill, for it would upset the main part of the Measure.

Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON rose—

HON. MEMBERS: Divide!

5.0 p.m.

Sir D. NEWTON: I am somewhat surprised at hon. Gentlemen on the other side, in view of the fact that it is in accordance with the general courtesy of of the House to allow Members whose constituencies have been referred to, to make some observations; and I wish to say one or two words regarding the references which have been made to Cambridge. I have given careful consideration to the Amendment now before the Committee, from the point of view both of the effect upon my constituency and of the effect on the country as a whole. I realise that this question must be viewed from the large point of view, and from the point of view of its effect on the structure of local government as a whole. When it is looked at from that point of view, I feel unable to support the Amendment. There is universal consent that something has to be done, but we have had nothing of a constructive nature from the other side, and, in the absence of a better scheme, I am going to support this scheme. It is significant that as far as non-county boroughs and the municipal corporations are concerned —[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"]—the Amendments before the House do not meet with their active support. Their official associations have expressed no view upon the matter. With regard to meeting the hardship imposed upon some of the larger authorities, I would venture to make a suggestion to the Minister, which I hope will receive careful con
sideration and attention. I suggest that where a borough at the last census had a population of 50,000 or over, and where its local government boundaries and the boundaries of the Poor Law union are coterminous, and where such non-county borough council elects to take the administration of the Poor Law into its own hands, in such a case it should be permitted to do so. That, I think, would

meet certain cases of hardship. But the real remedy lies in seeing that adequate representation is given to the smaller authorities on the spending authorities. If adequate representation is given it will go a long way to meet the opposition to be found in certain certain quarters.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 131; Noes, 218.

Division No. 60.]
AYES.
[5.3 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Harney, E. A.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Harris, Percy A.
Scrymgeour, E.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayday, Arthur
Sexton, James


Ammon, Charles George
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Baker, Walter
Hirst, G. H.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shinwell, E.


Batey, Joseph
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sitch, Charles H.


Bellamy, A.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smillie, Robert


Benn, Wedgwood
John, William (Rhondda, Wast)
Snell, Harry


Bondfield, Margaret
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvartown)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Briant, Frank
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stamford, T. W.


Bromfield, William
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stephen, Campbell


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Keity, W. T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kennedy, T.
Strauss, E. A.


Buchanan, G.
Kirkwood, D.
Sullivan, J.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Lansbury, George
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cape, Thomas
Lawrence, Susan
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Charleton, H. C.
Lawson, John James
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lee, F.
Thurtle, Ernest


Connolly, M,
Livingstone, A. M.
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, W. G.
Longbottom, A. W.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Dalton, Hugh
Lowth, T.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Lunn, William
Viant, S. P.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Mackindar, W.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Day, Harry
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dennison, R.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dunnico, H.
March, S.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Maxton, James
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah


Fenby, T. D.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wellock, Wilfred


Forrest, W.
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Westwood, J.


Gardner, J. P.
Murnin, H.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gibbins, Joseph
Oliver, George Harold
Whiteley. W.


Gillett, George M.
Palin, John Henry
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Win. (Edin., Cent.)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Atterdiffe)


Greenall, T,
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Potts, John S.
Windsor, Walter


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Richardson, R. (Houghton. le-Spring)
Wright, W.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Rilay, Ben
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grundy, T. W.
Ritson, J.



Hall, G. H. (Msrthyr Tydvil)
Roberta, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney A Shetland)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. H., Elland)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Paling


Hardie, George D.
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall. St. Ives)



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Burman, J. B.


Albery, Irving James
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Campbell, E. T.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Boothby, R. J. G.
Carver, Major W. H.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M.S.
Bowater, Col. Sir T, Vansittart
Cautley, Sir Henry S.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Brass, Captain W.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.


Astor, Viscountess
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Briggs, J. Harold
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Briscoe, Richard George
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Brittain, Sir Harry
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Christie, J. A.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T, P, H.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. 1.
Clarry, Reginald George


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Clayton, G. C.


Berry, Sir George
Buchan, John
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Bethel, A.
Buckingham, Sir H.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George


Betterton, Henry B.
Bullock, Captain M.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel


Cooper, A. Duff
Hopkins, J. w. W.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Cope, Major Sir William
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Raine, Sir Walter


Couper, J. B.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Ramsden, E.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Isilngton, N.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hudson, R.S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Remer, J. R.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hurd, Percy A.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Chti'y)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Galnsbro)
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Iveagh, Countess of
Ropner, Major L.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemoath)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Salmon, Major I.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Edmondson, Major A. J.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sandon, Lord


Ellis, R. G.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Savery, S. S.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M)
Lamb, J. Q.
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Shepperson, E. W.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Skelton. A. N.


Falie, Sir Bertram G.
Long, Major Eric
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Looker, Herbert William
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Fielden, E. B.
Lougher, Lewis
Smithers, Waldron


Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Lumley, L. R.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Lynn, Sir R, J.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Gates, Percy.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Maclntyre, Ian
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Goff, Sir Park
Macmillan, Captain H.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Gower, Sir Robert
Macqulsten, F. A.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Grace, John
MacRobert Alexander M.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Grant, Sir J. A.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Waddington, R.


Grotrian, H. Brent
Margesson, Captain D
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Meller, R. J.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Hamilton, Sir George
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Watts, Sir Thomas


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Wells, S. R.


Harland, A.
Moreing, Captain A. H.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple


Hartington, Marquess of
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnet)
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Haslam, Henry C.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Womersley, W. J.


Henderson, Lieut.-Colonel Vivian
Nuttall, Ellis
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Woodcock, Colonel H. C,


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Penny, Frederick George
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wright, Brig.-General W. D.


Hilton, Cecil
Perkins, Colonel E. K.



Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Perring, Sir William George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Sir Victor Warrender.


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Pllditch, Sir Philip

Mr. HARNEY: I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, after the word "borough," to insert the words:
or in boroughs (other than county boroughs) and in urban and rural districts, where in the case of such boroughs and urban and rural districts the population is
certified by the Registrar-General to be fifty thousand or over, the council of the borough or urban or rural district.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 133; Noes, 223.

Division No. 61.]
AYES.
[5.13 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Bondfield, Margaret
Cove, W. G.


Adamson, W. M. (Stall, Cannock)
Briant, Frank
Dalton, Hugh


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbio')
Broad, F. A.
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh. Denbigh)


Ammon, Charles George
Bromfield, William
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Day, Harry


Baker, Walter
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Dennison, R.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Buchanan, G.
Dunnlco, H.


Batey, Joseph
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Cape, Thomas
Edwards, J. Hugh (Aecrington)


Bellamy, A.
Charleton, H. C.
Forrest, W.


Benn, Wedgwood
Connolly, M.
Gardner, J. P,




Gibbins, Joseph
Lowth, T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Gillett, George M.
Lunn, William
Stamford. T. W.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mackinder, W.
Stephen, Campbell


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Greenall, T.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Strauss, E. A.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
March, S.
Sullivan, J.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Grundy, T. w.
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Thurtle, Ernest


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Murnin, H.
Tinker, John Joseph


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Oliver, George Harold
Tomlinson, R. P.


Hardle, George D.
Palin, John Henry
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Harney, E. A.
Paling, W.
Viant, S. P.


Harris, Percy A.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Hayday, Arthur
Pethick-Lawrence. F. W.
Warne, G. H.


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Watson, w. M. (Dunlermilne)


Henderson, T (Glasgow)
Potts, John S.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Hirst, G. H.
Richardson, R. (Houghtor-le-Spring)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Riley, Ben
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslsh


Here-Bellsha, Leslie
Ritson, J.
Wellock, Wilfred


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)
Westwood, J.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks. W. R., Elland)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Jones, J. J. (West Ham. Silvertown
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Whiteley, W.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Kelly, W. T.
Scrymgeour, E.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Atterclitle)


Kennedy, T.
Sexton, James
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph Ml.
Shaw, Rt. Hon, Thomas (Preston)
Windsor, Walter


Kirkwood, D.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Wright, W.


Lansbury, George
Shiels, Dr. Drummond.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Lawrence, Susan
Shinwell, E.



Lawson, John James
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lee, F.
Sitch, Charles H.
Sir Robert Hutchison and Mr.


Livingstone, A. M.
Smillie, Robert
Fenby.


Longbottom, A. W.
Snell, Harry





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel
Cooper, A. Duff
Harland. A.


Albery, Irving James
Cope, Major Sir William
Hartington, Marquess of


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Couper, J. S.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold CMS.
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnet)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Haslam, Henry C.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Astor, Viscountess
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Herbert, s. (York, N. R., Scar. & wh'by)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Hilton, Cecil


Berry, Sir George
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy


Bethel, A.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Holbrook. Sir Arthur Richard


Betterton, Henry B.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Davison, sir W. H. (Kensington, SO
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney. N.)


Brass, Captain W.
Ellis, R. G.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Erskine, Lord (Sonterset, Weston-s. M.)
Hume, Sir G. H.


Briggs, J. Harold
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Briscoe, Richard George
Everard. W. Lindsay
Hurd, Percy A.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Fielden, E. B.
Iveagh, Countess of


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Finburgh, S.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Buchan, John
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Buckingham, Sir H.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Bullock, Captain M.
Foxcrott, Captain C. T.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Burman, J. B.
Fraser, Captain Ian
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Campbell, E. T.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Carver, Major W. H.
Gates, Percy
Knox, Sir Alfred


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Lamb, J. Q.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Cazalet. Captain Victor A.
Goff, Sir Park
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Gower, Sir Robert
Long, Major Eric


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Grace, John
Looker, Herbin William


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Grant, Sir J. A.
Lougher, Lewis


Charteris, Brigadier-General
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Herman


Christie, J. A.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Lumley, L. R.


Clarry, Reginald George
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Lynn, Sir Robert J.


Clayton, G. C.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Cockerill, Brig.-Generat Sir George
Hamilton, Sir George
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Maclntvre. Ian




Macmillan, Captain H.
Ralne, Sir Walter
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Macquisten, F. A.
Ramsden, E.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Remer, J. R.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Margesson, Captain D.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Meller, B. J.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Waddington, R.


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Ropner, Major L.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T, C. R. (Ayr)
Salmon, Major I.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Watts, Sir Thomas


Moreing, Captain A. H.
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Wells, S. R.


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple


Nelson, Sir Frank
Sandon, Lord
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Savery, S. S.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Shepperson, E. W.
Winterton. Rt. Hon. Earl


Nuttall, Ellis
Skelton, A. N.
Womersley, W. J.


O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Penny, Frederick George
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n A Kinc'dine.C)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Smithers, Waldron
Wright, Brig.-General W. D.


Perring, Sir William George
Southby, Commander A. R. J.



Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Captain Wallace and Sir Victor


Pllditch, Sir Philip
Streatfeild, Captain S. R. Warrender.



Power, Sir John Cecil
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Mr. WEBB: I beg to move, in page 2, line 5, at the end, to add the words:
Provided that in the transfer of the functions of a Poor Law authority to the council of a county or county borough, it shall be a condition that the function with respect to relief of persons on account of unemployment shall he transferred to the distress committee of such council within the meaning of the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905.
The object of this Amendment is to prevent county and county borough councils, to whom we are transferring these powers, flora dealing with the able-bodied poor, that is, the unemployed, under the Poor Law. Personally, I take the view that the able-bodied poor ought to be dealt with by the Ministry of Labour. Whatever the present Government or the next Government do, I feel certain that the tendency is towards making the Government responsible for dealing with unemployment. As a matter of fact, the able-bodied poor have been to a large extent taken outside the Poor Law already. A large number of the unemployed are at the present time provided for, not out of the poor rates, but out of the Unemployment Insurance Fund—something like a million or more—and my Amendment does not refer to them. A further large number are being provided for by the Minister of Labour in his various training establishments, a number which is increasing every week, and my Amendment does not apply to them. In all probability the Minister of Labour will gradually add more and more
to his training establishments. But, apart from these two sections, there will always be some poor left whose care cannot be transferred to national Government; though I believe that in the space of the next 19 years, and probably less, we shall find the national Government undertaking the relief of all able-bodied men and women.
This Amendment deals with those who 'are being relieved under the Poor Law at the present time, a work which is to be transferred to the county and county borough councils. Already the county councils have at their disposal another means than the Poor Law. They can deal with the able-bodied poor under the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905. That was a very useful Act when it was used. In recent years it has been allowed to fall into abeyance, and what we are asking is that now that these county and county borough councils are to have dumped upon them the work of dealing with the able-bodied unemployed they should not be deprived of one of the existing powers for dealing with that class. The guardians of the poor, whose powers will be handed over to the county and county borough councils, can do a great deal for the able-bodied poor, but there are some things which the guardians cannot do, and which the county and county borough councils can do under this Unemployed Workmen Act. But the Minister of Labour, apparently, does not intend that these councils should have the powers,
because in a later Clause it is proposed that the Unemployed Workmen Act should be repealed. It would be a pity if they were deprived of these powers, which they will certainly wish to exercise when they have to deal with the able-bodied poor.
The Unemployed Workmen Act, which was passed by a Conservative Government, was acclaimed at the time as marking a great step forward in dealing with the unemployed, and it was so, because that Act was of considerable use in dealing with the spell of unemployment prevailing at that time. It was made use of very largely in London, and to some extent in some of the other large centres of population, during that spell of unemployment. Afterwards there came booming trade and the War, and the problem of the able-bodied poor faded right out of sight, and therefore the Act has been used only to a very slight extent, and now it is proposed by the Minister that it should be repealed.
If I may express my own opinion, I should say that my study of the operations of the Poor Law has led me to one very definite conclusion, amongst others, and that is that it is quite improper to associate under the same system of relief the impotent poor, that is to say, the sick, the aged and children, with the able-bodied poor. It vitiates the whole procedure both as regard the one section and the other. Whatever be the local authority charged with these duties, it prevents it from being a good authority for dealing with the impotent poor and at the same time a good authority for dealing with the able-bodied and the unemployed; and therefore, accepting the framework of the Bill, as we must, it is a pity to compel the county and county borough councils to deal with these two separate sections of the poor together. The Parliamentary Secretary seemed to give the Committee the impression that it was intended to enable the new authorities to separate and break up the Poor Law and to deal with these sections of the people separately and by separate committees. I think he went much too far. The Bill does not do that; but when we come to Clause 4 we shall see how much sincerity there is in the Government on the question of whether they want to take the section to which I have referred out of the Poor Law altogether.
Clause 4 contains no power whatsoever to take this particular class, the able-bodied poor, out of the Poor Law and to deal with them in any other way than that in which the guardians have been dealing with them. It is conceivable, out of the six or seven separate sections which the guardians are dealing with, that under Clause 4, five or six of the sections might to some extent—here and there and in some places but not in others—be dealt with under the specific powers appropriate to deal with all those separate classes. But the class of the able-bodied unemployed is shut up within the limits of the Poor Law and there are no powers under Clause 4 or any other Clause to take them out of the Poor Law. When we see that the Unemployed Workmen Act is to be repealed, we see that it is the intention that county and county borough councils shall not deal with the unemployed in any other way than as paupers under the Poor Law. They are to be forbidden to deal with the unemployed able-bodied in any other way except that of the guardians. The Unemployed Workmen Act was based on the conception that there are amongst those in distress some who are capable of different treatment than that which the Poor Law provided, and the county councils and county borough councils had power to provide more suitable treatment.
The power given under the Unemployed Workmen Act may be thus summarised. First of all, the local authority is authorised to obtain information from other districts as to the conditions of labour and the opportunities for work there. That is a very necessary power, and we see that procedure being followed in the present methods of dealing with distress in the distressed areas. As a matter of fact, so necessary is it that various boards of guardians are actually taking those steps though it is against the law, and any expense which they incur in connection with it is liable to surcharge; but they are doing it, and they have not been checked by the Minister or his inspectors or district auditors. I could name the districts which are devoting a good deal of attention to finding out what is going on in places outside their own area, and I would tell the right hon. Gentleman that I came across one authority which, when they had found a job for one of their able-bodied
paupers in a district a long way off and could not pay his railway fare, gave him his outdoor relief for two weeks in advance to enable him to get to that job. That was strictly illegal, and, of course, I am not going to give the names. It shows, however, that even boards of guardians have to go outside their ordinary powers in order to relieve cases with which they have no power to deal under the Poor Law.
Under this Bill that is not going to be allowed, and you cannot imagine the councils of great county boroughs committing such a breach of the law as the guardians have been doing. The Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905, gives them power to do that, and the same Act empowers them to obtain information as to labour conditions in other districts. They may also pay removal expenses to another area. Surely that is the one thing which is necessary to-day in those cases. I agree that this hardship may be to some extent mitigated by the efforts of the Industrial Transference Board, but even when a job has been secured under this Bill the county boroughs and the county councils will have no power to pay the removal expenses of the person they wish to send to fake up a job in another district. Assuming that this Bill passes in its present form, I challenge the Minister of Health to point out where the county borough councils will have any power to pay removal expenses from one distressed district to another.
There is another power of special importance at the present time in regard to emigration. I am quite aware that many boards of guardians have allowed their power of assisting emigration to lapse, and the number who have been assisted in this way last year is very small. Under the Unemployed Workmen Act it was a regular system in the London of 20 years ago to emigrate whole families. Again, under the Unemployed Workmen Act the authorities may provide temporary work with the object of putting the men in a position to obtain regular work. The boards of guardians cannot do that, and it would be against the law for a county borough council to do it under this Measure. Under the Unemployed Workmen Act an authority has the power to provide temporary
work in order to set a man on his feet again, but those powers are denied under this Bill. I cannot believe, in view of the fact that the Unemployed Workmen Act of 1905 was passed by a Conservative Government and designed to help the unemployed, that the Government now wish to repeal that Act and do not intend to replace it by other Clauses in this Bill. Under this Bill the county borough councils and the county councils have to confine themselves within the limits of the two main powers possessed by boards of guardians in dealing with the able-bodied poor. One is that they can offer them the workhouse knowing all the time that the workhouse is a very unfit place for an able-bodied man.
The workhouse is a demoralising place, and the last Poor Law Commission reported that the workhouse system was causing the ruin of hundreds of able-bodied men who were aggregated in the workhouse by order of the President of the Local Government Board under the Poor Law. Of course, the Minister of Health cannot contemplate all the able-bodied men coming into the workhouse, and what he appears to be relying upon is that the threat of the workhouse test will drive the workmen off. If the workers came into the workhouse it would be a terrible thing, and if they were to come into the workhouse in very large numbers there would be a great deal more demoralisation. Therefore you cannot ask the county boroughs to rely on the workhouse in order to accommodate the unemployed.
The other course is offering outdoor relief. I am not going to say a word in favour of that course, because any unconditional outdoor relief is a demoralising method of dealing with the able-bodied. Neither the method of dealing with the able-bodied by offering them the workhouse nor that of outdoor relief can be defended at the present time with any degree of candour or justice. The Minister of Health does not propose to give able-bodied men outdoor relief, in fact he is more in favour through his inspectors of refusing them outdoor relief. What I want to know is whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks it is right to shut these new bodies down to nothing but those two bad alternatives in dealing with the able-bodied unemployed when they might have the experimental
powers under the Unemployed Workmen Act to which I have referred to assist them in dealing with this problem. Under that Act the county borough councils have power to start farm colonies for able-bodied men and that course would have an enormously better effect than offering these men the workhouse or outdoor relief. Under this Bill the establishment of farm colonies in this way is to be stopped. The county borough of Leeds and the county borough of Newcastle, which up to now have not had to deal with this problem, will not be allowed to adopt the experimental methods to which I have alluded. I submit that under the Bill as it stands the county borough councils or the county councils cannot use any other methods or expedients for dealing with the able-bodied unemployed than the guardians are empowered to use at the present time. Those new bodies will have their powers confined absolutely to the present Poor Law powers, and the powers which the boards of guardians enjoy at the present time under the Unemployed Workmen Act of 1905 will be taken away from them.
The reason why this Amendment is in order is that at the present time the guardians have power to spend the rates to the extent of id. rate for these special purposes, and they can raise additional sums for this purpose to the extent of ½d. rate with the consent of the Minister of Health. Under this Bill that power is going to be taken away. At the present moment the able-bodied unemployed can be dealt with in a way under which you get rid of the stigma of pauperism, but now the Minister of Health wishes them to be dealt with in such a way that the stigma of pauperism will remain. There is one other very useful provision in the Unemployed Workmen Act of 1905. One of the greatest difficulties which we have to face at the present time is the state of things in West Ham, and the real root of that difficulty is that West 'Ham is not in London. Under the Unemployed Workmen Act of 1905 a central body was set up for London and there is power to extend London to any adjacent or nearby district. Therefore, we could allow the central body dealing with London which was set up under the Unemployed Workmen Act of 1905 to deal with the unemployed problem in West Ham under that power.
I do not think it is wise when you are transferring these new and important duties to county boroughs and county councils to deprive them of powers to deal with these various problems which they now enjoy, because they are powers which in practice have proved very useful. Anyone who examines the work which was done by the central body dealing with the unemployed in London in 1905–10 will see at once that it was a very efficient and extremely useful body. I do not see why the London County Council should not have all these powers which have been exercised by the other bodies to which I have referred. It seems absurd to take away the powers which all the local authorities possess at the present time, and shut them down to the discredited methods of the Poor Law such as the workhouse and outdoor relief.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Committee always listens with great interest and a great amount of respect to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb) when he speaks upon a subject to which we know he has given a great amount of attention. I myself have followed with special interest his views in regard to the working of the Unemployed Workmen Act of 1905. He has represented that we are going to impose upon county councils and county borough councils new and, as he describes them, very terrible duties. I agree with him, at any rate, in so far as he indicated his view that, if a body which has these terrible duties imposed upon it had no alternative but either to continue outdoor relief for an indefinite period or to invite applicants to enter into a workhouse or institution of that character, that, indeed, would be a very unfortunate circumstance; but it seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman did not make, at any rate in what he said, sufficient allowance for the fact that we are now transferring these duties from the boards of guardians, who have no power to provide work, to bodies like the county councils and the county borough councils, which, in fact., have very large powers in their hands. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have recognised that, when you put into the hands of a body which is doing work all the time the responsibility for looking after the able-bodied unemployed, you are putting those duties into
that quarter where what all of us agree is the best possible remedy for the problem is most likely to be found.
The right hon. Gentleman told us that the Act of 1905, which was passed, as he said, by a Conservative Government, was in its day an extremely useful Act; and he asked us to consider its working up to the year 1910. I agree that it was in its day a very useful Act, and the reason why it has fallen into disuse, the reason why it has been allowed to lapse, as the right hon. Gentleman says, by the local authorities to whom these powers were entrusted at that time, is that other Measures have been introduced since then which have provided other methods of dealing with the problem. The right hon. Gentleman himself mentioned the principal one, namely, the Unemployment Insurance Act, passed in 1911. Therefore, it is 18 years now since the Act of 1905 was of practically any use to anyone, and that, I think, perhaps accounts for the fact that, although the right hon. Gentleman claims to protest on behalf of county councils and county borough councils, he has no authority to protest on their behalf, and I have received no communication from any one of them asking that we should preserve those powers, in spite of the fact that they are having these terrible duties placed on their shoulders.
If we examine the various provisions which the right hon. Gentleman enumerated as coming within the Act of 1905, we shall see why that is. The first provision is that local authorities under the Act are authorised to obtain information as to conditions in other areas. I do not think there is anything to prevent local authorities from getting information about what is going on in other places than those over which they have jurisdiction, but I certainly should deprecate instructing them to duplicate work which is now being carried on by the Employment Exchanges. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to view with considerable complacency the alleged action of a board of guardians which had taken some rather back-door methods of getting rid of some of its liabilities. I am sure, however, that he would not really suggest that it would be desirable to multiply instances of that kind, and, since we have established Employment Exchanges,
whose duty it is to find out where work is available and to pass on that information to people who are in want of work, surely it is unnecessary to ask local authorities to carry on exactly the same work. We should not only be wasting time, but should be wasting staffs and money, and should probably not do the job as well as it could be done by one body having responsibility for it. I do not think, therefore, that that is a power which we should desire specially to continue.
Then the right hon. Gentleman says that they may pay the expenses of transference. But are they going to pay the expenses of transference, even if they are given the opportunity? I should very much doubt whether these powers would be exercised, even if they were given to them to-day, by authorities which are bearing such heavy burdens, and which are not in a position to pay the expenses of transference, which are very heavy, especially in the case of people with large families, who are the greatest drain on the localities; and, although these powers exist under the Unemployed Workmen Act of 1905, I am quite sure that no county council or county borough council would ask that such powers should be preserved. Then as to the power in regard to the promotion of emigration, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, county boroughs and county councils have powers already to promote emigration. But I am sure he realises, or, if he does not, I may tell him, that it is not merely sufficient to have powers to promote emigration. We all know that the difficulties of emigration are not entirely in this country; they lie very largely outside the power of anyone in this country; and, although all the powers in the world might be given to the local authorities to promote emigration, they would not be able to get more people to emigrate than other countries are willing to accept. Therefore, I do not think that there is very much in that point. We are doing everything that can be done to-day to promote emigration, and I am certain that nothing could be added to the value of our present efforts by any such powers.
Then, under the Act of 1905, the local authorities had power to find temporary work pending permanent work. Of course, local authorities can do that now. They have plenty of work always going
on, and, as I have said, they have on their shoulders the responsibility for looking after people who are unemployed; and that power would offer no further inducement to them to arrange their work in such a way as to relieve themselves of that particular burden. As for starting farm colonies, I do not think that our experience at Hollesley Bay has been such as to tempt any local authorities to imitate it. Only to-day I gave an answer to an hon. Member who asked me how many people had found employment after having resided at Hollesley Bay, and, speaking from memory, I think that, out of 1,700 people who have been through the colony, less than 200 have found employment. [Interruption.] I do not think it really matters very much how long it was; I will say since the War, if the hon. Member likes. You cannot start farm colonies with the idea that you are going to keep people there for ever. The idea of farm colonies is to fit men for some special purpose, and to find work for them as a result of the skill and experience which has been imparted to them in the farm colony. The experience under the Unemployed Workmen Act indicates that the object in view can be very much better attained in other ways.
The records of the training centres of the Ministry of Labour show most remarkable results. Over 90 per cent. of the people trained in those centres have found work. Really, the right hon. Gentleman is a little behind the times. He has gone back to 1905, three and twenty years ago, and has left out of account or forgotten the fact that circumstances have changed since then, that these new methods have been employed, and that we are now doing, by means of the Ministry of Labour and the Employment Exchanges, the work originally intended to be done by the Unemployed Workmen Act. Of course, there is also the work which is now done through the Unemployment Grants Committee, where local authorities are given assistance from national resources to start works for the employment of the able-bodied unemployed. Under the Unemployed Workmen Act it was contemplated that the funds would be raised from voluntary sources, and not that money would come from national sources—

Mr. WEBB: Immediately after the Act was passed a grant was made.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Contributions from the national resources have now become a recognised part of the machinery for dealing with this problem, and I do not think it would be found that the present arrangements would be improved upon, under which we get a very large amount of work put in hand by local authorities with contributions from national resources. These arrangements, although, of course, they cannot deal with a problem of the size of that with which we have to deal to-day, and which has been continued for so many years in succession, have nevetheless very largely mitigated its acuteness. When you consider ail that we have done to-day in two directions—first through the Ministry of Labour and then through the public works put in hand by local authorities, with the assistance of the Exchequer—I think it is perfectly clear that the Unemployed Workmen Act, good as it was in its day, and suitable as it was to the conditions existing at the time when it was passed, has become a dead letter, and now, obviously, there can be no reason for continuing it.

Mr. LANSBURY: The right hon. Gentleman seems to have altogether missed the point of the arguments that we have tried to put before the Committee. If there is anything logical in what he has just said, it is that these men ought to go to the Ministry of Labour, and that they should be dealt with as part of the problem of unemployment throughout the country. We have fallen back on this proposition because you, Mr. Hope, have ruled that our Amendment to deal with the problem in a national manner is out of order. The right hon. Gentleman has been at some pains to try to prove that the local authorities have power to-day to put in hand work, and that, as this business will be handed over to the county boroughs and the county councils, therefore, work will be provided. No one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that the London County Council, the metropolitan borough councils, and the county borough councils are at their wits' end to-day to provide work for the unemployed. Each and every one of them would be perfectly willing to do so, but they are not able under the provi-
sions that prevail, and more particularly because of the action of the committee which is under the right hon. Gentleman's control—the Grants Committee, which refuses to give money to carry out the works that local authorities could provide. The right, hon. Gentleman knows that that is so, and, therefore, there is nothing at all in that part of his argument which says that local authorities today have power to put people to work.
The Unemployed Workmen Act only became a dead letter when the Government, after the War, spent huge sums of money in providing work, and encouraged boards of guardians to give outdoor relief. Whatever evils have resulted from giving mass outdoor relief, no body is more responsible for them than the Ministry of Health. The Ministry, in 1920 and onwards, persuaded boards of guardians to take that sort of line, and the reason why Hollesley Bay during the last few years Las failed to provide the right sort of treatment for many of the men who went there since the War is entirely due to the action of the Ministry. They cannot get away from their responsibility for degrading that place to the level of a mixed workhouse. Before the War, when the place was run by the Central (Unemployed) Body under the Unemployed Workmen Act—I cannot give the figures to-night, but they are on record—not merely were large numbers of families emigrated, but a fair number of families also were found work on the land in this country. I was for some years the chairman of the committee that managed that colony, and I know that a very large number of men were provided with work in parts of the country other than London.
6.0 p.m.
For the right hon. Gentleman to say the whole of the effort that was made previous to the War at Hollesley Bay has been wasted proves that he is speaking without knowing what he is talking about. When you come to the question of emigration, the right hon. Gentleman and his officers know perfectly well that they have only to go to the Canadian and Australian Commissioner and mention boards of guardians or the Poor Law, and the cases are immediately turned down, because there is a stigma about the Poor Law which compels people to think that
the men dealt with under the Poor Law are less worthy than any others. When we dealt with the same sort of man at Hollesley Bay, the right hon. Gentleman, if he had had his brief properly prepared, could have proved conclusively that the emigration authorities, after they had been trained for a certain period, were quite willing to take such men and their families. But tney will not look at men who are trained, as they have been trained since the War, as paupers. When he says they will not be taken by the Colonies, I should like to ask him why it is that the Ministry of Labour is going to take over Hollesley Bay and use it as a training centre for sending men abroad.
The right hon. Gentleman for once has not had his brief properly prepared or he would know that there is not a single establishment that the Minister of Labour is running to-day that is not organised on lines laid down by this, the first organised Hollesley Bay Labour colony. It was set up, not to train men for agriculture or any particular trade, but to develop them for what they showed an aptitude for, and it was very successful, and every scrap of good that the Minister of Labour is doing in training centres owes its inception to the work of the people who formed the idea of Hollesley Bay. The right hon. Gentleman who drafted the Minority Report pointed out that you had no right to leave the unemployed on the dole or on outdoor relief. The proper thing to do was to see to it that they had some kind of training. Therefore, when we ask the Government to preserve these powers for us we only do it because you will not permit this body of men to go to the Ministry of Labour and be trained at the same colonies or settlements that the ordinary unemployed are being sent to. This question of the unemployed is to me the one question in this Bill. All the talk about money and machinery is as nothing compared with the well-being of the tens of thousands of men who are going still to be dealt with under the bestial conditions connected with the old Poor Law. That old Poor Law says that when a man is unemployed and when there is no longer insurable employment for him, when he has grown too old, not in age but so far as his physique is concerned—men of 45 and 50 and women of 40 and 45—that
he is no longer wanted in the labour market. The only place for him is the workhouse or outdoor relief, but in any case he is to live on the border line of Starvation.
I do not believe the bulk of the House can understand the mental, moral, and physical hurt that is being done to tens of thousands of men and women by this fearful policy of the Poor Law. A hundred years ago you might have imposed it on the people and it would not hurt them so much as it does to-day because they were not educated. They could not read. I know a case of a man who fought in the War, who has a disability pension of £1 a week and has a young child to bring up. He is certified as fit for light work. Because of that, the right hon. Gentleman's inspectors and auditors say he must be treated, not as a man suffering from a disability, but as an able-bodied man, and he has been offered either the workhouse or a mere half-a-crown on the top of his pension. That is all because the Poor Law is founded on the doctrine that the poor are bad in the lump and that there is something wrong in the man which has prevented him from being able to provide for himself. There is no one here who, when ho is calm and quiet, can ever believe that that is true. You know it is not true.
We ask to be allowed to use the powers we have under the Unemployed Workmen's Act and to deal with them, not in the way they are being dealt with, as semi-criminals, but as simple human beings. I speak to the Committee as one who has spent years of his life serving the Central Unemployment Body, working day in and day out at this problem, trying our level best to use the powers we had to improve and develop individual men and women. Small as it was, and small as it would be if you granted this, it does to some extent mitigate the evil they have to face and gives some of them at least hope. In this Bill we are not going to break up the Poor Law, but to transfer it and re-create its administration under another form. That is the difference between the right hon. Gentleman and ourselves. We believe in smashing once and for all the spirit of the old Poor Law, getting rid of the principle that you have to deter people from getting the public assistance they need.
That brings me to the question of the casuals. Anyone who has stood outside a casual ward, who has ever been in a casual ward or has ever talked to casuals, is bound to admit that the bulk of them are more sinned against than sinning They are not people who have taken to the road from choice. Many young men are on the road because they will not be a burden to their parents or friends. We could deal with them in a decent and wholesome manner if you only gave us the chance. If our Amendment had been in order and we would have put them under the Ministry of Labour, we could, I am sure, have dealt with them in a humane manner. We could, even under the Unemployed Workmen Act, definitely say that all persons who are able-bodied should be dealt with, not in casual wards and not in the spirit of treating them worse than criminals, but treating them as human beings. The treatment of unemployed men and women, from the casual to the skilled worker, is at the foundation of all this expenditure on public health and all the services which people in the House and outside continually call in question and wonder where it is going to end. You have to put up clinics for the children in working-class areas because their bread winner is unable to provide the means to keep them in health and comfort. The genesis of poverty and destitution lies mainly in unemployment, low wages, casual labour and all that sort of thing. We say, take hold of the unemployed problem and deal with it in a. rational manner and not in the spirit of those who say, "Wait till the person is destitute; wait and judge whether the little child can live a little longer; wait and see whether the want of boots is such that it is breaking down its health." We say, "Do not let the child get into that position at all, see that its parents have a chance of providing the necessaries of life for it all the time."
Our challenge to the Poor Law is not, as the right hon. Gentleman said, something that happened 20 years ago. What makes me bitter about the business is that the right hon. Gentleman is perpetuating in this Bill the barbarous policy that is starving tens of thousands of women and children in the coalfields. You are asking us to continue a policy which has broken down. The Prime Minister said the other day the Poor
Law had not broken down. The evidence that it has broken down is the fact that you had to cry out for public charity to do what the nation ought to have done months ago. We have asked again and again and again, not that you should give outdoor relief, not that you should give charity, but that you should organise employment for these men. I do not see the difference between demoralising people by private charity and demoralising them by outdoor relief. Hon. Members opposite may see some difference, but I do not. The reason we want this business dealt with in a different manner is not because of something that happened 20 years ago, but of what is happening to-day.
The Poor Law is administered in a brutal, inhuman manner by the right hon. Gentleman, and for every child that dies this winter, for every woman who is starved, for every woman who is confined and has not the means of being properly dealt with, the responsibility lies on the right hon. Gentleman and his Department, who are asking us to perpetuate the power that is exercised by his auditors and inspectors, well-fed and well-paid men, who go round the country and say "Cut this down." They came to the union which I represent. I am one of its members. I sat in the board room and heard the chief inspector say: "You must cut it down. You must bring your numbers down." It was not a question as to whether it was necessary, but simply a question of bringing down the numbers, so that the inspectors could write their reports and say: "Pauperism has reduced." When you say that pauperism has reduced, just remember that human misery has increased, the human misery of little children trudging out this weather with no boots, badly clad, as you were told, little children, in regard to whom you send down your inspectors to inquire whether bad weather, want of food and clothing had injured their constitution. How many of us would tolerate our children being kept without food until they were medically examined, I should like to know? This business is one for which there is no solution but ours. You may patch up this thing, you will throw out this Amendment, you will keep the able-bodied where they ark, and you will not have settled
the problem. It will cost you money. It will cost you a good deal in physical and mental deterioration of the people on whom you and I depend for our daily bread.
Do not make any mistake. You cannot have a nation living as masses of our people are living under conditions of penury, destitution and want, you cannot allow that to continue, and at the same time preserve yourselves as a big, fine nation. Nations go down as much from economic ruin as they do from violence and bloodshed. This Bill does nothing but perpetuate a system which has been weighed in the balance and found wanting a thousand times. Hon. Members want to know why I vote against this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman wanted to know why I signed the Minority Report drafted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb), and why I, who want to break up the Poor Law, and to get rid of the guardians, vote against this Bill. It is because this Bill and this particular Clause is going to perpetuate all the horrors of the Poor Law. Instead of abolishing boards of guardians, instead of abolishing the spirit of Bumble, it is going to perpetuate that system. I hope the people will realise that this Bill is bad, and it is because it is bad that it has my unhesitating opposition.

Mr. HARNEY: I agree that the part of Hamlet in this drama which we are now enacting has been left out, because unquestionably the real centre of the Debate is: What should he done with the able-bodied unemployed? The Chairman of the Committee, very properly I am bound to say, said that we cannot discuss Amendments that would involve a further charge on the Exchequer. Therefore, it has not been possible for us to argue the case of transferring the cost of the able-bodied unemployed to the national purse. This Amendment does give an opportunity to us of expressing some views upon the minor points as to whether the able-bodied unemployed should be retained under the Poor Law. The most extraordinary and outstanding feature of the whole of these proposals is that they are put forward in order to put an end to what is now a very hateful memory, both from its origin and from the feeling which it has engendered in the people, the old Poor Law. That
is the justification put forward, and the able-bodied poor who, above all, ought not to be tinged with the stigma of pauperism are the one persons who are left without the slightest change in the Poor Law. That is a very remarkable thing.
The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), in his eloquent and sincere speech, dwelt a good deal upon the brand of pauperism. We do not require to be deep students of history to realise that the original idea many centuries ago was that it was a bit of a crime to be poor. The initiation of Poor Law legislation was as much aimed at punishing those who were regarded as vagabonds as it was at relieving distress. Accordingly, our Poor Law institutions were made abhorrent to any man of self-respect, and they have continued so almost up to the present time. That is the position. Now you leave this slur upon the able-bodied. I want the Committee to realise, and I am sure they will try to do so, how it is that men of the class of whom we are speaking have to go to the doors of the guardians of the Poor Law. Let us look at it. Take my area of the Tyneside. It may have been a good or a bad policy to have given the Silesian coal mines to Poland, but it was a policy that threw able, willing and honest fellows out of work in that coalfield at the time. It may have been a good or a bad policy to cut down naval armaments, hut it was a national policy that threw thousands of poor fellows, excellent men, rivetters, platers, and all sorts of workers in the shipyards out of employment. It may have been a good or a bad policy during the War to hurry crowds of people into industrial areas all over England and then to leave them after the War was over to stew in the juice of the ratepayers. These are the men upon whom you are leaving the stigma of pauperism. Is there any need for it?
Let me draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to some figures which I have had prepared for-me. He will be able to see whether they are right or wrong. At the present time, there are about 1,300,000 people receiving poor relief—institutional, domiciliary and other relief. Of that number, there are 450,000 representing the class of unemployed of whom I am speaking, and their
families. Of course, the majority of this number comprises their families. [An HON. MEMBER: "There are 100,000 men!"] Yes, and in all about 450,000. Deduct that number from the 1,300,000, and you have 855,000 left. You have then a great number of other persons suffering from infirmities, mental or physical. They are treated as paupers. If you take away 520,000 on this account, there are 330,000 persons left over. I have only received these figures from somebody.

Sir K. WOOD: I cannot understand what this has to do with the Amendment.

Mr. HARNEY: I am only apologising in case my figures are not quite accurate. Of the 330,000 to which we are now down, about 230,000 are pauper children.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): I think that the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) is getting a little away from the Amendment. This is an Amendment to transfer the responsibility for the unemployed to the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905, and I rather think that the point which he is raising now will come more properly on the Motion that the Clause stand part than on this specific Amendment.

Mr. HARNEY: I am not endeavouring to deal with the point. I agree that we have been ruled out there by the Orders of the House. The way in which I make this relevant is as follows. Whether for the moment the peg on which to hang this is the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905, or not, I am entitled to say that the Amendment is to take something away from the Poor Law. If you take something away from the Poor Law I am showing what is left there, and I am analysing what is left. I have now reached the point that if you make the children come under your council institutions, the same as non-pauper children; you have absolutely nothing left—only 100,000, or something like that number which is not worth bothering about: Therefore, the removal Of the able-bodied poor from the Poor Law would not only take the stigma from them, not only relieve the rates but it would solve the whole of the difficulties with which this complex Bill is concerned. Therefore, I follow up the proposal: contained in this Amendment by
urging that—use your 1905 Act or anything you can find, since you are not allowed to use the real thing, the nation —if you lift off the Poor Law those able-bodied people the ground will be cleared.
There is one thing more I would say to my right hon. Friend, for whom I have great respect. You have now your Unemployment Insurance, which was intended to be a tap to drain the morass of destitution just as your Health Insurance was another tap to drain a bit more. The Unemployment Insurance has drawn off so much—it was all on the Poor Law before—that there are only left these 100,000 and their dependants. In order to do that you had to make a splendid institution insolvent. National insurance is insolvent to-day. If it were a private body it would be in the hands of the Official Receiver. A sum of about £30,000,000 had to be given by the Exchequer to keep it going, and £10,000,000 more has been authorised. The bankruptcy is due to keeping the unemployed on the Poor Law. Lift them off the Poor Law and see what happens. You could bring Unemployment Insurance back to its truly scientific lines; the benefits derived from insurance would be the benefits actuarially won by the contributions paid.
National insurance in these abnormal times could not possibly cope with the number of persons out of work; you would have a swollen number of unemployed, but you would get a healthy national insurance. At the present moment you keep it going by loans from the Exchequer, not by grants, and these loans have to be repaid by additions to the contributions of employers and employed. It is these additions which are crippling industry to-day. Remove your unemployed, bring back your national insurance to its true scientific basis, cancel this absurd loan of £30,000,000, wipe out the additional contributions put on industry by reason of the loan, and you would solve many of your difficulties. You would save another institution which is becoming bankrupt—the Poor Law. £6,000,000 is owing; and why? Because you keep up the absurd position of saying that these men must be maintained under the Poor Law, and in order to keep up that position you have bankrupted your
insurance scheme, bankrupted boards of guardians, and you leave these unfortunate men and women with a stigma upon them which was never intended to rest upon persons who are honourable and out of work not because they are lazy and incompetent but because of a national policy in which they have had no say.
The whole scope of this Bill is to alter the basis of local government. Why is that necessary? Why is it thought advisable to make your county boroughs and your county councils? It is solely because of these able-bodied poor, and them alone. Take them away, and for what do you want to change your ancient boundaries? Are you, for the small remnant that would be left, going to set up all this elaborate machinery in order that a few poor scattered people may be dealt with under a bureaucracy instead of under their neighbours' kindly hands? All this is made necessary by this one fatal defect of leaving the unemployed on the Poor Law. Take them away and you may leave your boards of guardians alone, you may leave your county boroughs alone, you can stop all this complexity, all these readjustments and all the compensation to some 30,000 officials; and we could all adjourn sooner and spend a much happier Christmas time.

Miss WILKINSON: If I may return to the Amendment before the Committee after the somewhat discursive speech of the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney), I should like to say a word or two in regard to the Unemployed Workmen Act of 1905. I am aware that it is not possible to deal with the wider question of the national aspect of unemployment, but I want to suggest that the Minister of Health was not quite correct when, in replying to the right hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb), he declared that the powers under the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905, were out of date and were not applicable to modern conditions. I suggest that it is not the powers which are out of date; it is not even that they are not applicable to modern conditions. The whole difficulty has arisen because the Minister of Health has not encouraged local authorities to use the powers they possess.
Instead of that he has relied upon the payment of out-door or indoor relief. It can be argued that it is cheaper in the long run to pay some kind of subsistence allowance rather than pay for the cost of materials and the setting up of works and factories. If you pay a subsistence allowance all your money goes in the payment of food. That is an arguable proposition if you are dealing with a purely temporary period, and I have no doubt that the Minister of Health, when arguing in this way, was assuming that he was dealing with a purely temporary dislocation, as we all hoped he was. The right hon. Gentleman argued that it was cheaper to keep people until the time when works restarted and they got back to work again rather than spend a large amount in apparatus and materials and training.
While that was the argument in 1924 a situation has now arisen to which the 1905 Act is peculiarly applicable, and that is, the large numbers of areas where abnormal unemployment is a meaningless phrase. It is excessive unemployment that is, alas, becoming normal, and the problem we have to face is this excessive unemployment which is localised, and which is waterlogging certain areas. I suggest, that it is to the men in these areas the powers given under the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905, are peculiarly applicable. Take an illustration from the iron and steel area of Middlesbrough, the constituency which I represent. A large number of munition workers who went there during the War have settled down and married there. You also have a large number of people who would ordinarily be employed if the conditions were such as existed previous to the War. Owing to the new processes which have been introduced into the steel industry, leading to the elimination of surplus labour, reducing in some cases by two thirds the number of men that are needed, large numbers of men will never be employed again. How are they to be dealt with? The Minister of Health says that we are to go on as we are and trust to something turning up.
At the present time these men are being dealt with in four different ways. There is the unemployment benefit. A large number, of these cases, because unemployment has continued so long, will not come under the new Insurance Act; they
will not be able to claim benefit because of the 30 stamps condition. Then there is out-relief. Single men are denied out-relief and are told that they must tramp the roads. Large numbers of men are sent to the horrors of the casual wards. Many of them are young men, the sort of men for whom the Act of 1905 is very suitable. Then you have the last method, by which able-bodied men are taken from their wives and families into the workhouse leaving the wives and families outside. These are the ways in which the Government are dealing with the problem. I suggest that they will not make any progress by transferring, as they are by this Bill, the present procedure to larger areas and cutting out any question of training which is provided under the 1905 Act. The Minister of Health may be right that this Act is more or less out of date but if the Amendment were adopted these powers would not lapse altogether, and local authorities would be encouraged to use them to the very fullest extent.
The 1905 Act allows boards of guardians to put men to work temporarily in order to train them for permanent work, and it applies to women as well. I think the Minister should encourage a full use of these powers by local authorities. If instead of this stone wall attitude on the part of the Minister we had an intelligent survey of these areas, we could find out if it is possible, by providing temporary work and training, to drain these areas of the worst form of unemployment. The situation is getting terrible in some districts. There are men of 19 and 20 years of age who left school at the beginning of the slump and have never had a regular job of any kind. Somebody has to train them. Normally they would have gone through the ordinary discipline work in the factories, steel mills and blast furnaces, and even if they were thrown out at the end of their apprenticeship they would have had some training. Unless the powers under the 1905 Act are continued, or other powers given, it is impossible to deal with the problem. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept the Amendment perhaps he will tell us whether it is possible under any other Clause in the Bill to deal with this question. Unless somebody is going to train these men they are simply going to be left unemployed.
I do a good deal of visiting in my constituency and I speak to large numbers of the mothers there. The one thing that they are agitating for over and over again is summed up in the question, "Cannot you do something for the training of our boys?" I know that the Parliamentary Secretary will reply that there are already the juvenile training centres, but they are entirely different things, run under the Unemployment Insurance Act. They do not deal with the point that is stressed in the 1905 Act, and that is to put people to work temporarily in order to train them for employment. We cannot leave these boys under the assumption that even a few of them—they are extraordinarily few—will go to the juvenile training centres. Some of them are too old to qualify under the Unemployment Insurance Act, but they would come under the Unemployed Workmen Act. I ask the Minister to put some brains behind this scheme instead of simply saying that he cannot do anything. If I am asked: "What new industry are you going to train them for?" I reply that we might do something that Germany has done. In Germany they have a survey of national resources and they use their unemployed definitely for the creation of national assets. It may be possible in this country, by having a national survey, to see whether it is not possible to use these men under the 1905 Act for the creation of a national asset.
Then there is the training of women. I know that there is already a certain amount, but a very small amount, being done under domestic training schemes for the training of women. It is not desirable in any way to interfere with that, but I do suggest that there may be a whole field of training which does not come under the Unemployment Insurance Act. I ask the Minister to take his mind back to 1911 and the difficulties then. We had to face the same trouble at the beginning of the War. We had to deal with a large amount of unemployment among women. There were set up in various parts of the country what were known as women's workrooms. Women were taken in and they made clothes which, when finished, were not sold, but were used either for the women's own families or for distribution by police or boards of guardians or other parties con-
cerned. We have brought to the notice of the Prime Minister a position which is largely analogous to that of those days. There is acute distress, not only in the mining areas, but, in the steel areas, and we have the Minister of Education admitting, for example, that the clothing position in those areas is terrible. Would it not be possible to transfer these powers and train women in the distressed areas in the making of clothes even for their own families? That would be definite training, and the clothes when made might be distributed by the Minister of Education in the devastated areas. The need of the areas is such that they could consume all the clothing that the workrooms could produce.
If it should be said that that would interfere with the normal processes of trade, I would reply that in the distressed areas there is no effective demand, for the people cannot buy the clothing. The position, therefore, is that, unless the clothes are given away they are not put on the children. You have this appalling need coupled with a complete lack of effective demand, and you have the powers under the Act of 1905 which says that the guardians may set people to work temporarily for their permanent good. To have these women working in these workrooms and making clothes, the clothes to be given to the distressed areas, would be doing a double job. I have women coming to me continually and saying, "There is no possibility of a job." These women of 45 have spent their days in industry. Domestic service is not an outlet at all, because they are quite unaccustomed to the work and mistresses will not train women of 45. Moreover, many of them are not fit for heavy domestic work.
By adopting the suggestion I have made the Government would deal with the problem in two ways: They would produce clothes which are desperately needed, and they would give the women regular work and the possibility of a regular meal; and the women's capacity would be improved, for they would be able to make their own clothes and the clothes of their families and altogether prove to be more valuable people than they are when dragging themselves about from pillar to post as at present. While it is true that the powers under the 1905. Act are rusty, is it necessary that we
should go back to the position that it is cheaper to give some relief and leave it at that? To adopt such an attitude means hopeless and helpless misery going on year after year. It is the awful length of time that the distress has lasted that is cutting into people's hearts and making them despair. We are creating a whole generation of younger people who have never known the discipline of training. For all these reasons I urge the Minister to reconsider his opposition to the Amendment. I ask him to say that he will accept the Amendment and transfer these powers to the county councils and larger authorities concerned—to transfer them with his blessing, and urge that the powers shall be used whenever it is possible to use them.

Sir K. WOOD: I am sure that many of the aspirations and desires expressed by many hon. Members in this Debate are shared by all of us. With regard to the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) and his suggested removal of the able-bodied unemployed from the Poor Law to the State, I am precluded from replying by the Rules of Order. The real reason why it is not desirable or necessary that the functions of the 1905 Act should be transferred to the larger authorities is that those functions have long ago disappeared in the administration of unemployment, and training and other machinery and other bodies have for all practical purposes long ago taken their place. With the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) I was a member of the Central Unemployed Body for London as a representative of the London County Council, and I found that the original functions under the 1905 Act had to a large extent been taken over by other people. For the, last 20 years no one has attempted to make effective use of the Act. Since the Act was passed we have had a different conception altogether of the functions of the State and of the authorities in this matter. The hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) made an appeal about the training of women. She knows as well as anyone that the appropriate Department to approach in connection with such training is not the Ministry of Health but the Ministry of Labour.
7.0 p.m.
The proper Department for the modern administration of that particular function of the State is the Ministry of Labour, and it is not carried out under the Unemployed Workmen Act. 1905. Since that Act was placed on the Statute Book, we have had a great system of unemployment insurance in this country. No one would think from the observations which have been made that we had any system of unemployment insurance. That has very largely taken away the functions contemplated under this Act, and, as every Government have found, has displaced the necessity of putting many parts of this Act into operation. It is said that, if you do not go on with this Act which has not been in operation for 20 years, the only remedy is that people have either to go into a Poor Law institution or to go on outdoor relief. Surely hon. Members who make that statement must have forgotten the system of grants which has been so long in operation.

Mr. LANSBURY: You have stopped them.

Sir K. WOOD: The system of grants has been in operation under Lord St. Davids' Committee and can be renewed again if necessary under the jurisdiction of counties or county boroughs. So far as the functions to be transferred are concerned, there is no necessity to transfer those under this Act, because powers of that kind are already in the hands of counties and county boroughs. I am very sorry that I am exciting the hon. Members opposite, but I really must be permitted to make my observations. I have not interrupted any of the right hon. Gentlemen and I ask to be allowed to make my statement. They should really be more patient with a much younger Member. So far as those functions are concerned under this Act there is really no need to put them into operation and, when you come to examine one by one the particular functions under this Act, you will find, as every Government in turn has found, that this Act has really ceased to be a practical Measure either in connection with training or the administration of relief. It is not from any wickedness on the part of the Government that they are doing this. The reason we are not continuing this Measure is because it has ceased to be
a useful Measure in local administration and has been displaced by better and more up-to-date machinery for dealing with the question of unemployment.

Mr. WEBB: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether there is any provision in this Bill for the payment of the expenses of removal?

Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not been more sympathetic, if not to the actual words of the Amendment, at least to the idea that underlies it. I want to put one practical point with regard to the Act of 1905. That Act was intended to facilitate the finding of work by the county councils. Under this scheme, I am sorry to find that the able-bodied unemployed have still to remain under the control of what would probably be called the public assistance committee. Quite apart from the objection on the part of the Government, which I quite understand, to transfer the whole problem of the maintenance of the able-bodied unemployed from the local rates to the Exchequer, this raises a new principle as to whether the amelioration of the conditions of the able-bodied unemployed should not really be taken from the public assistance committee and vested in the county councils.
I would urge this point upon the Minister of Health. Whatever else we may or may not do, we are bound to make provision for unemployment during the next few months. That can only be done by large schemes for drainage or afforestation. I can conceive nobody in whom the power of administering those schemes can be vested except the county council. It would be a great pity if the county council has not information as to the actual number of able-bodied men in their district. I do not suppose for a moment that the Minister will accept the Amendment in its present form but I suggest that he should consider the desirability of vesting the assistance of the able-bodied in the county councils rather than in the public assistance committee.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health has gone. I wanted to point out to him, when he stated that the Unemployed Workmen Act had not been put
into operation, that for a considerable number of years there has been no necessity to do so. I am connected with the steel industry and our percentage of unemployment is higher to-day than in the mining industry. In the steel, tinplate and sheet industry we had up to 1919 a period of very great prosperity. The percentage of unemployment was from 3 to 5 per cent., because we had a custom in that industry that, if one out of six mills or furnaces in a works was closed down, that the men on the other five mills or furnaces shared the work with the men who worked upon the mill or furnace which had been closed down. In my society we had an unemployment benefit which was only paid to men when the works were closed down altogether. They used to receive from 10s. to 12s. a week according to years of membership. In 1919, the society had funds of £500,000 for the purpose of paying out these benefits, but, in the slump which took place in the latter part of 1920, we paid out that £500,000 in out of work benefit in less than four months, though it had taken us 40 years to accumulate all that money. Practically all our people were idle.
The reason why we are asking that these powers should be transferred to the county councils is because in our industry to-day it is not only a mill or a furnace which is closed down, but the works are closed down altogether and the men cannot even share the work as they used to. We have to-day, according to the figures submitted at our last executive meeting, an average of 20 per cent. unemployed in the steel and iron trade. At the present time, because our young men are being deprived of assistance by the boards of guardians as a result of the instructions issued by the Ministry of Health, we are taking the hat round our own members in order to grant some gift to these poor fellows during the Christmas holidays.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is getting a little far from the Amendment. He is talking upon the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. GRIFFITHS: No, I was pointing out that we want work found for these men, and unless that work can be found
and if this Government will not make it a national question, then we want it to he done by the county councils. When the Parliamentary Secretary asks us not to interrupt when he was speaking, I ask that the Parliamentary Secretary should give us facts and then we would not want to interrupt. He says this Act is not needed. We know the facts, we know that it was not needed at one time but it is needed to-day. Until work is found for the unemployed, we shall continue to agitate until after this Government is cleared out at the next election.

Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: I am sorry the right hon. Member has cleared out before the wrath of the right hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb) and the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). He cannot complain of their interrupting him when he advanced such extraordinary arguments as he did just now. The position he put was that subsequent legislation since the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905, had been so perfect and was so all-embracing that the need for any other kind of legislation had disappeared. He says that solemnly, with the unemployment situation as it is to-day. It is an incredible way of approaching the problem. The unemployment insurance system is a thing of which we on these benches may be proud, but it was not addressed to a situation such as we have to-day. It served the needs of the time, but no one would say that it was adequate for a situation such as this. To appeal to the Lord St. Davids Committee, a body which had practically ceased to function, and which had to have artificial respiration given

to it by speeches from that box recently, is to make an absolute travesty of the whole situation.

Whatever may be the disadvantage of the Unemployed Workmen Act—and nobody on these benches has pretended that it is an ideal way of dealing with the subject—the position which I think we all take on this side is that any method of dealing with able-bodied unemployed is better than the present bankrupt and antiquated system of the Poor Law. Better anything than that. If it be true that the Unemployment Insurance Act does not cover the ground and that the Lord St. Davids Committee, largely because their opportunities have been restricted, have not covered the ground, then we must, if need be, fall back on legislation which we all desire to improve and extend, and on which we could give suggestions if it were in order to do so. We should fall back even on that rather than that these men should be driven once again to what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) the other day called "the door of dishonour." We should fall back on that rather than see these men who arc unemployed through no fault of their own being driven to fake relief in the one form which they feel to be degrading. Until work is provided by some better method we ask the Government to continue the use even of this antiquated expedient, rather than continue what is the most iniquitous method of all, of giving relief.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 135; Noes, 236.

Division No. 62]
AYES.
[7.20 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Cluse, W. S.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Connolly, M.
Griffith, F. Kingsley


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Cove, W. G.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Ammon, Charles George
Dalton, Hugh
Grundy, T. W.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Blliton)
Davies, David (Montgomery)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)


Baker, Walter
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Hardle, George D.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Harney, E. A.


Batey, Joseph
Day, Harry
Harris, Percy A.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Dennison, R.
Hayday, Arthur


Bellamy, A.
Dunnico, H.
Henderson, Rt Hon. A. (Burnley)


Benn, Wedgwood
Edge, Sir William
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hirst, G. H.


Briant, Frank
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Unlver.)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Broad, F. A.
Fenby, T. D.
Hollins, A.


Bromfield, William
Gardner, J. P.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Gibbins, Joseph
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Gillett, George M.
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Buchanan, G.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Win. (Edin., Cent.)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Cape, Thomas
Greenall, T.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Charleton, H. C.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson aid Coins)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Kelly, W. T.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Strauss, E. A.


Kennedy, T.
Potts, John S.
Sullivan, Joseph


Kirkwood, D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Lansbury, George
Riley Ben
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Lawrence, Susan
Ritson, J.
Thurtle, Ernest


Lawson, John Jamas
Robinson, W.C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)
Tinker, John Joseph


Lee, F.
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Tomlinson, R. P.


Livingstone, A. M.
Saklatvaia, Shapurji
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Longbottom, A. W.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Viant, S. P.


Lowth, T.
Scrymgeour, E.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Lunn, William
Scurr, John
Watson, W. M. (Duntermilne)


Mackinder, w.
Sexton, James
Watts-Morgan. Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


MacLaren, Andrew
Shaw, Rt. Hon Thomas (Preston)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Wellock, Wilfred


MacNeill-Weir, L.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond.
Westwood, J.


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Shinwell, E.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


March, S.
Sitch, Charles H.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Maxton, James
Slesser, Sir Henry H,
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Morrison. R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Smillie, Robert
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Murnin, H.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Windsor, Walter


Naylor, T. E.
Snell, Harry
Wright, W.


Oliver, George Harold
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Palin, John Henry
Stamford, T. W.



Paling, W.
Stephen, Campbell
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Pethick-Lawrence, P. W.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Whiteley.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainshro)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Albery, Irving James
Cunllffe, Sir Herbert
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fltzroy


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Astor, Viscountess
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)


Atkinson, C.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hume, Sir G. H.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen, Sir Aylmer


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Dean, Arthur Welleslty
Hura, Percy A.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Illffe, Sir Edward M.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Ellis, R. G.
Iveagh, Countess of


Berry, Sir George
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Bethel, A.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Betterton, Henry B.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Sklpton)
Fielden, E. B.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Finburgh, S.
Klnloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Bowyer, Captain G. E, W.
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Brass, Captain W.
Foster, Sir Henry S,
Lamb, J. Q.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Briscoe, Richard George
Fraser, Captain Ian
Locker-Lampson. Com. O. (Handsw'th)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Fremantle, Lieut. Colonel Francis E.
Long, Major Eric


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Looker, Herbert William


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Lougher, Lewis


Buchan, John
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Buckingham, Sir H.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Lumley, L. R.


Bullock, Captain M.
Goff Sir Park
Lynn, Sir R. J.


Burman, J. B.
Gower, Sir Robert
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Campbell, E. T.
Grace, John
MacIntyre, Ian


Carver, Major W. H.
Grant, Sir J. A.
Macmillan, Captain H.


Cassels, J. D.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Macquisten, F. A.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Grotrian, H. Brent
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Chapman, Sir S.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K,


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hacking, Douglas H.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Christie, J. A.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Clarry, Reginald George
Hamilton, Sir George
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Clayton, G. C.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hartington, Marquess of
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Cooper, A. Duff
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Cope, Major Sir William
Haslam, Henry C.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Couper, J. B.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Nelson, Sir Frank


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Herbert, S.(York, N.R., Scar, & Wh'by)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hilton, Cecil
Nuttall, Ellis




O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Tinne, J. A.


Penny, Frederick George
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Tltchfield, Major the Marquess of


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Sandon, Lord
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Perring, sir William George
Savery, S. S.
Waddington, R.


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Scott, Rt Hon. Sir Leslie
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A.D. Mel. (Renfrew, W.)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Pilcher, G.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Warrender, Sir Victor


Pliditch, Sir Philip
Skelton, A. N.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Power, Sir John Cecil
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Watson, Rt. Hon. w. (Carlisle)


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlns, C.)
Watts, Sir Thomas


Radford, E. A.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wells, S. R


Raine, Sir Walter
Smithers, Waldron
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-


Ramsden, E.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Remer, J. R.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Withers, John James


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Storry-Deans, R.
Womersley, W, J.


Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Ropner, Major L.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Wright, Brig.-General W. D.


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Templeton, W. p.



Salmon, Major I.
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Captain Margesson and Captain Wallace.


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: Before the Committee proceed to a Division on this question, I wish to read a letter in regard to the effect of these proposals in certain districts in Wales. I wish to have this placed on record and I hope the Minister will give it his attention. This is a letter from the Clerk to the Urban District Council of Panteg which states—that at a meeting of the Council resolutions were passed unanimously by members of all political persuasions opposing the equalisation of Poor Law expenditure over the county of Monmouth and particularly the payment in respect of the Bedwelity Union's debt unless adequate provision is made by new grants to meet any increase of rates incurred. The letter continues:
I may say that the responsible financial officers of the district councils in the county have been in conference with the county accountant, and data are available for the construction of the new and more correct 'picture' of the actual result of the financial scheme. The county accountant hopes to be in a position to issue a summary for the county before the close of the present week. Meanwhile, I may say that in the Panteg urban district in which Command Paper 3134 indicated a gain of 1s. 1¾d. in the £, the county accountant and myself estimate a loss equivalent to 3s. 1d. in the £ on the de-rated values in the one rating sub-district, and 3s. 6d. in the other, and

in the adjoining Pontypool rural district the gain of 1s. 9d. appears now to be a loss of 11d. These enormous errors are presumably due to the 1926–27 figures (the year of stoppage, rates not representing expenditure and assessments based on pre-stoppage output) taken by the Government, being abnormal. The following is a short summary of the position.
Panteg Urban, On the general district rate side there is a gain in one sub-district of 3d. and a loss in the other of 2d.
The present county rate will, after taking into account the county council's share of the new grants, remain the same as at Present on the de-rated values.
Compared with 2s. 4d., the net Poor Law expenditure in the Pontypool Union for the current year, the equalisation over the county will involve on the de-rated values—Poor Law, 4s.; Bedwellty debt for 15 years, 1s.; transferred highway expenditure, 8d.— a totf.1 of 5s. 811.

It will be seen that these boards of guardians are going to suffer considerably as a result of this new scheme—

It being half-past Seven of the Clock, the Chairman proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 12th, December, to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Business to be concluded at half-past Seven of the Clock at this day's Sitting.

Question put, "That the part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 237; Noes, 144.

Division No. 63.]
AYES.
[7.30 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)


Albery, Irving James
Applin Colonel R. V. K.
Astor, Viscountess


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Atkinson, C.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Grotrian, H. Brent
Pilcher, G.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hacking, Douglas H.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Berry, Sir George
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Radford, E. A.


Bethel, A.
Hamilton, Sir George
Raine, Sir Walter


Betterton, Henry B.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ramsden, E


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hartington, Marquess of
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Remer, J. R.


Bowyer, Capt, G. E. W.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Brass, Captain W.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Briscoe, Richard George
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Ropner, Major L.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hilton, Cecil
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Salmon, Major I.


Buchan, John
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Bullock, Captain M.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Burman, J. B,
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Campbell, E. T.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Carver, Major W. H.
Hudson, R.S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Sandon, Lord


Cassels, J. D.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Savory, S. S.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hurd, Percy A.
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Illffe, Sir Edward M.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Chapman, Sir S.
Iveagh, Countess of
Shepperson, E. W.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Skelton, A. N.


Christie, J. A.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Clarry, Reginald George
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)


Clayton, G. C.
Kennedy. A. R. (Preston).
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Smlthers, Waldron


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Cooper, A. Duff
Knox, Sir Alfred
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cope, Major Sir William
Lamb, J. Q.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Couper, J. B.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'sland)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handtw'th)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Long, Major Eric
Storry-Deans, R.


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Looker, Herbert William
Streatfelld, Captain S. R.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lougher, Lewis
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Herman
Sugden, Sir Wilfred


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Lumley, L. R.
Templeton, W. P.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Llndsey, Galnsbro)
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Maclntyre, Ian
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Macmillan, Captain H.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Macquisten, F. A.
Tinne, J. A.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington. S.)
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Dawson, Sir Philip
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Malone, Major P. B.
Waddington, R.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Ellis, R. G.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Warrender, Sir Victor


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Milne. J. S. Wardlaw
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Everard, W. Lindsay
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Moore, Sir Newton J.



Flelden, E. B.
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Finburgh, S.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Wells, S. R.


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Wilson. R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Ganzoni, Sir John
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Withers, John James


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Womersley, W. J.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Nuttall, Ellis
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Goff, Sir Park
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Wright, Brig.-General W. D.


Gower, Sir Robert
Penny, Frederick George



Grace, John
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grant, Sir J. A.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Major Sir George Hennessy and Captain Margesson.


Greene. W. p. Crawford
Perring, Sir William George



Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Ammon, Charles George
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bllston)
Batey, Joseph


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Baker, Walter
Beckett, John (Gateshead)




Bellamy, A.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Benn, Wedgwood
Hollins, A.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Bowerman. Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hore-Beilsha, Leslie
Scrymgeour, E.


Briant, Frank
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Scurr, John


Broad, F. A.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Sexton, James


Bromfield, William
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Buchanan, G.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Shinwell, E.


Cape, Thomas
Kelly, W. T.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, T.
Sitch, Charles H.


Cluse, W. S.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Connolly, M.
Kirkwood, D
Smillie, Robert


Cove, W. G.
Lansbury, George
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Crawfurd, H. E,
Lawrence, Susan
Snell, Harry


Dalton, Hugh
Lawson, John James
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Davies, David (Montgomery)
Lee, F.
Stamford, T. W.


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Livingstone, A. M.
Stephen, Campbell


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Longbottom, A. W.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Day, Harry
Lowth, T.
Strauss, E. A.


Dennison, R.
Lunn, William
Sullivan, J.


Dunnico, H.
Mackinder, W.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Edge, Sir William
MacLaren, Andrew
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Thurtle, Ernest


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
MacNeill-Welr, L.
Tinker, John Joseph


Fenby, T. D.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Forrest, W.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Gardner, J. P.
March, S.
Viant, S. P.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Maxton, James
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Gibbins, Joseph
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Gillett, George M.
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edln., Cent.)
Murnin, H.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Greenall, T.
Naylor, T. E.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Oliver, George Harold
Wellock, Wilfred


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Palln, John Henry
Westwood, J.


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Paling, W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Grundy, T. W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercllfte)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Potts, John S
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hardie, George D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Soring)
Windsor, Walter


Harney, E. A.
Riley, Ben
Wright, W.


Harris, Percy A.
Ritson, J.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Nswton)


Hayday, Arthur
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)



Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hirst, G. H.
Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Whiteley.

CLAUSE 2.—(Power to combine councils for special purposes.)

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence)—in page 2, line 6, at the beginning, to insert the words:
The Minister shall make orders for combining, any two or more councils, whether councils of counties or county boroughs, covering suitable areas, for the purpose of dealing with vagrancy, and such orders shall include provisions for the suitable classification of all casuals, separating youths and mental deficients from other classes, and for ascertaining through the medium of the Employment Exchanges within the combined area the possibilities of employment, and
—could be moved as a proviso to Subsection (2).

NUTTALL: I beg to move, in page 2, line 8, after the word "areas," to insert the words "or parts of areas."
In Clause 2, Sub-section (1), there is given power to county councils or county borough councils to combine, and in the
next Sub-section there is given power to the Minister to order that combination if he thinks it. is desirable, but, on the other hand, there is no provision in this Subsection to allow one portion of an area to combine with another portion, and the object of my Amendment is to give power to the Minister to order the combination of one portion of an area with another portion if he thinks it desirable. There are several cases, especially in industrial areas, where that combination might be advantageous. The case I have in mind is that of the Ashton-under-Lyne union, which consists very largely of three boroughs: the Borough of Ashton-under-Lyne, which is in Lancashire, and the Boroughs of Dukinfield and Stalybridge, which are both in Cheshire. The population on the Lancashire side is about 117,00C, and the population on the Cheshire side is about 52,000. It is a very highly industrialised area, and there is no seal dividing line between one town and another; in point of fact, it is well nigh impossible to tell where one town
ends and another begins. These three boroughs, with the adjoining agricultural districts, comprise the Ashton-under-Lyne Union; and in addition to that for the purposes of the 1923 Rating and Valuation Act, although the union is situated in two separate counties, they have been allowed to count as one area for that purpose. Therefore, it is hoped that the Minister can see his way to allow them to become one area for the purposes of this Bill.
The real difficulty arises in the case of the institutions, because the whole of the institutions are in Lancashire, Cheshire having none at all. The workhouse and infirmary are both in Lancashire, and those institutions have been put down on the site so that they can combine to provide any extra accommodation that may be required. Therefore, if the two counties do not agree to a union of those institutions, it means that Cheshire will have to build new institutions, which will cost a great deal of money, and, in addition, new sites are well nigh impossible to find. I am not certain whether, under Clause 93, the Minister has power to order a joint use of those institutions, whether or not the two county councils agree. If he has, and if he will give that undertaking, I think that would be satisfactory; but if there is no power to do that, I think some power ought to be given to him to co-ordinate them, because this part of Cheshire is rather unique. It is practically divided from the remainder of the county; being surrounded on one side by Lancashire, on another by Derbyshire, and on another by Yorkshire, it is a sort of arm running up on its own. Therefore, I hope the Minister can see his way to allow one portion of an area to combine with another portion of an area, so as to get away with any difficulty that might arise.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for explaining in some detail what is the particular difficulty to which he desires to draw attention. I confess that when I first saw the Amendment on the Paper I had not quite fully appreciated the motives which lay behind it, but now that I understand his difficulty, I think I can remove it by giving him the assurance that he asked for, because this is just the class
of case that can be deal with under Clause 93. Under that Clause all institutional property
may be divided between any two or more of those councils, as may be agreed between the councils, or, if no agreement has been arrived at two months before the appointed day, as the Minister may by order determine
Therefore, it will be possible, in the first instance, by agreement, and if no agreement is possible between the councils, it is open to the Minister to make an Order.

Mr. NUTTALL: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Miss LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in page 2, line 26, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that the Minister shall make orders for combining any two or more councils, whether councils of counties or county boroughs, covering suitable areas, for the purpose of dealing with vagrancy, and such orders shall include provisions for the suitable classification of all casuals, separating youths and mental deficients from other classes, and for ascertaining through the medium of the Employment Exchanges within the combined area the possibilities of employment
We desire that Parliament shall deal with this matter, and that they shall declare that there shall be suitable areas and classification, and that there shall be cooperation between the Poor Law institutions and the Employment Exchanges. I ask the Committee for a moment to look at the general question. During the War there were practically no casuals, and casual wards were closed. With the unemployment that came after the War, the number of casuals increased enormously, and I see by the figures that there were over 12,000 in March last. We have from all over the country evidence that this number is increasing, and evidence of the horrible overcrowding of the casual wards. I gave an instance, which was not denied, the other day of 110 men in accommodation for 41. I have here particulars of a large number of unions where similar shocking conditions occur, but I will not go into the details, because it is not denied that the casual wards, particularly those in the north and west of London, and those round the towns in the Midlands, are habitually in this frightful state of congestion.
The Poor Law inspectors point out that the character of the casual has completely changed, and that, as well as the old tramp, there are a large number of young vagrants who are described by the inspectors as men who set off along the roads in an aimless search for work. A very large number of these men are either certainly looking for work or in the opinion of the inspectors possibly looking for work. No people are so badly treated as the casuals. The men on the roads are saying that it is better for a man to go to prison, and they say that for reasons which I want to recommend to the House. One reason is that the food is much worse in the casual wards than in the convict prisons; that is true, the food is worse than any diet in prison, except the punishment diet, and it approximates to the punishment diet. There is no difference, except a scrap of cheese and a little margarine, between the authorised diet for casuals and the punishment diet in prison. The punishment diet can only be given where the age and sex of the person does not render it desirable. You cannot put a feeble man on to the prison punishment diet, but you cannot give him anything else if he is a casual.
It is not only that the food is worse, but that the hardships which are habitually experienced by men on the roads are worse. I have given the instance of men sleeping on concrete floors. Men are sleeping on the floors 'in the overcrowded casual wards on the way to the big towns every night. It is worse than prison, for in prison a man's mattress can be taken away only if he is refractory, but his bed must be left. He never sleeps on the floor. Then, again, the task of stone breaking which the casual has to perform is harder and more repulsive than anything the Prison Commissioners allow in prison. What tramps are saying to each other on the roads—and I have had this from charitable people who spend their lives among them—is that it is' better to go to prison, because the Prison Commissioners will give them a job. That is true. Under the direct influence of the Home Office, there are charitable people, prison chaplains, governors and other persons who will do anything in their power to give a discharged prisoner a chance of doing an honest day's work.
It is very creditable to them, and it is very creditable to the Home Secretary. While I am a political enemy of the Home Secretary, I am pleased to say that I always find him in dealing with individual cases one of the most humane of men. Really and truly, these men on the roads would be much better off if they were handed over to these efforts of reclamation of the Home Secretary. We say, therefore, in this Amendment that it shall be the duty of the new vagrancy authority to be continually in touch with the Employment Exchanges. At the present time, they can be kept as casuals for a whole day and two nights. There is no communication with the Employment Exchanges, and it is not the duty of the boards of guardians to use a telephone so that they could direct these poor chaps where they could get a job of work. Their only business is to pass them on. Even the best of guardians take not the least interest in these birds of passage, and the worst of them are engaged in a competition to keep the casuals out of their territory, and put on all manner of deterrents in order to keep the casuals from crossing their boundaries.
The real comparison that should be made is with the unreformed prisons before the present prison system was introduced. Nothing more shocked the early prison reformers than the fact that the first offenders and the hardened gaol birds were herded together. Mrs. Fry spoke of the prisons as schools for vice. That is exactly what the casual wards are to-day. These young men go out aimlessly looking for work, and in the casual wards are found among the tramps some of the most dangerous characters in the world. The young men are put in unrestricted association with them, and every experienced magistrate knows that the object of these old rogues, hardened in every sort of vice and villainy, is to pick up a young man or boy to go on the roads with them. Every magistrate knows what that means. All that has been said about the unreformed Newgate being a school of vice and crime is true of the casual wards to-clay.
What about the mentally deficient casuals? They are in the casual wards, lumped in with the others, put on the same punishment diet, made to sleep on the floor, and set the same penal task 'of
work. These people really cannot help themselves, and they ought not to be put in these places. Our system in this country is looked upon with horror in Continental countries. Denmark has a proper classification system for separating the mental deficients, and separating the youths from the older men, and the honest men looking for work from the rogues and vagabonds. I could always write the speeches of the Parliamentary Secretary beforehand, and when he replies he will make statements that the Ministry is perhaps not very much worse than Ministries that have gone before—

Sir K. WOOD: Much better.

Miss LAWRENCE: But that is no answer at all. I have brought a cruel and admitted wrong before the Committee, a wrong which has gone on under Department after Department, and now that the rising tide of vagrancy has grown to enormous proportions, I ask that this Imperial Parliament shall take the matter in hand and lay down a minimum of decent conditions.

Sir D. NEWTON: The hon. Lady has made an eloquent appeal, as she always does, in support of her Amendment. There is no question that the vagrancy problem is one of the most serious problems that presents itself to the country at the present time. There is great need for co-ordination and for setting up vagrancy committees to function over the country as a whole. Thousands of men are wandering about. They start out in search of work, but, after a spell on the road, some of them begin to lose heart, and they then lose the self-respect which is so essential for regaining a position in society, until finally they become permanent wayfarers on the road. The many and varied systems of relief at present in operation tend to aggravate rather than to alleviate the vagrancy problem. Each institution tries to vie with its neighbour in attempting to solve the problem by a different method of treatment.
8.0 p.m.
It is most desirable that uniformity of treatment should be obtained and put into force among local authorities. As the law stands at present, district committees can be established to deal with vagrancy on a uniform basis, but the Min-
ister has no power to compel authorities to come together to carry out a common scheme, so if one authority stands out it is not possible to set up a scheme. Under this Bill, the Minister will obtain power to secure that there shall be combination if application is made to him by two or more authorities. That is a great step forward in dealing with vagrancy. Undoubtedly, these powers are needed so that reasonable and fair treatment on similar lines may be provided throughout the country. Powers are also needed in order to ensure that, so far as practicable and advisable, vagrants shall travel along the routes where they are most likely to find employment and be able to gain a livelihood. Vagrancy Committees are also wanted in order to attempt, as far as may be possible, to place the children of casuals in suitable schools; they have, in fact, a big and wide field to cover.
I suggest that the Amendment, with which in many respects I am in sympathy, goes rather too far. The Bill itself marks a long step forward, and I think it is wiser and better that we should trust the local authorities to do what is right in this matter. So far as the future is concerned local authorities will always have the Minister behind them to make an Order. The Amendment lays down precisely what local authorities are to do. There is no reason to suppose that local authorities, particularly those which are entrusted with the administration of the Poor Law, will not carry out their duties efficiently and effectively, and, therefore, I shall not support it. I am rather surprised, indeed, to find it proposed, because there has been considerable opposition shown by hon. Members opposite in regard to the control of Poor Law authorities, notably in the case of Poplar and certain other boards of guardians. I think this Bill makes a, good compromise, and that its proposals go far enough, for it will ensure that a single authority will not be able in future to block a scheme for a large area. I trust that the Minister will exercise the powers conferred upon him by the Bill, because I think they are ample, and, if he exercises them, I think the difficulty in regard to vagrancy will be surmounted.

Mr. SHEPHERD: I am glad to be able to support the Amendment, which has
been moved so splendidly by my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence), and I am inclined to think that it would have been better to have left it there; but I want to stress how essential it is that we should have some uniformity of treatment of casuals as between one authority and another. I want to say here that I and many more appreciate even the small things that the Ministry of Health has done quite recently. I have had evidence from various parts of the country that they have really tried, through their inspectors, to remove some of the worst evils, and that they have succeeded in doing so in one or two instances. But the fact that we are thankful for such small things merely shows the gravity of the problem, and the fact that these things have to be dealt with in a civilised country proves how low we have fallen. If there are any hon. Members here who doubt that we have a right to say that this cannot be left to local authorities, I will read to them a Report which appeared in a local paper of the Uttoxeter Board of Guardians' meeting, held on the 14th November, when the question of what to do with the hordes of casuals was being debated. I would like just to say here that the Minister's inspector goes round the South of England—I wish someone would give him, a hint to prepare another speech—referring to the "plague of tramps," and his objection to the "plague of tramps" that it "looks bad with motorists going along the roads and seeing all those tramps." At the meeting of the Uttoxeter Guardians, to which I have referred, the master explained:
That on account of the large number of casuals relieved (double last year's total), it was impossible to find work for all, and, furthermore, it was difficult to supervise.
Granted. But he then went on to say:
If they were to reduce the number of casuals, they must find them tasks which would frighten them off as it did in other Unions.
That is the policy of the majority of boards of guardians at the present time —to make the conditions so bad for the casuals that they will go to other places where the conditions are not quite so bad. Any boards who are trying to do their work decently, and there are such, find themselves simply overwhelmed with the numbers of men who go there and
they have to retaliate by making it still harder for them, and so it goes on. There are the men, at the mercy of the various boards of guardians who are trying Do give them as bad a time as they can. There are some boards of guardians who give men soup while others give them a miserable skilly. There are some boards of guardians who do not allow the men to have bunks, but provide them with boards which are laid on concrete. Some boards of guardians warm the cells, while others refuse to warm them. In some casual wards, the men are given food, such as it is, with absolutely no utensils whatsoever, and when they go away from the casual wards they are handed bread and cheese which is not even wrapped up. Every man is supposed to be searched; but there are some guardians, I am glad to say, who are too decent to have the men searched; they treat them as law-abiding citizens and do not search them, while others search them more and more rigorously.
There are some boards who would re-introduce stone-breaking because they say it is more successful in breaking men's hearts than in breaking stones. There are some places where men have to go to the police for tickets, and there unemployment is associated with crime, while other boards would not allow that. In some places men are given bath-water to themselves, but in others as many as 14 and 16 men have to use the same water. In some places they are given a towel each, in others several men have to use the same towel. In some places the men are released at 6.30, while in others they are not released till as late as 3 o'clock. Some get into trouble for being late in arriving at the next workhouse, and, in one case, men got into trouble and there was a row and they were sent to gaol. There are some casual wards where they endeavour to find occupation for the men on Sundays. They are provided with mending materials for socks, boots and shirts and for washing their clothes, and in some places, I am glad to say, the guardians have invited people from outside to entertain the men on Sunday afternoons. If we are to get uniformity of treatment, the method proposed in the Amendment is the only way to do it under the present system, and I do beg that we shall attempt to do it by bringing the bad up
to the level of the good, and give those who are doing their job well a square deal.

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member who has just spoken has paid a certain amount of tribute to the work which has been done by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health, but the hon. Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence), who moved the Amendment, made no allusion to the work that is being done by the right hon. Gentleman in this connection. She predicted that I would say in my reply that we were no worse than our predecessors. I make no such claim; the claim I make is that the present administration is far more humane; that more attention is being given to the difficulties of the problem than under any other administration, and I include in that the Labour administration. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley), when he was Minister of Health, had to deal with this problem, and I think he dealt with it in a humane manner. One of the first things he was asked to do, when he was Minister of Health, was to abolish all tasks in connection with casuals.

Mr. SEXTON: Why do you not do it?

Sir K. WOOD: His answer was that ho would not; and during the whole time of the Labour administration stone-breaking and oakum-picking were imposed upon the casuals in this country. There was also a certain scale of dietary in those days, which the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Shepherd) has alluded to to-night, When I hear charges such as has been made to-night, I am entitled to remind the Committee, in fairness to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health and his Department, that, since my right hon. Friend took office, oakum-picking has been abolished altogether.

Mr. SEXTON: It is not generally applied.

Sir K. WOOD: Yes. As regards the general treatment of casuals, as I stated to the House in the very limited time I had the other night, directly the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health came into office, he issued instructions to the guardians with reference to the allowance of food and the general condi-
tions in relation to food were reconsidered and revised, especially so far as children are concerned. That cannot be gainsaid.

The CHAIRMAN: The matters to which the right hon. Gentleman is referring seem to me to be rather wide of the subject of the Amendment.

Sir K. WOOD: I am replying to statements which were made in the course of the Debate by the hon. Member for East Ham North who stated that this Amendment should be adopted by the Committee as a drastic measure owing to the conditions which obtain at the present time. I will content myself, because I have no desire to be out of order, by saying that, so far as the conditions of the casual wards are concerned, we have spent a considerable sum of money since the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health took office, and that, if there is any question of humanity or of the accusations which have been made in the course of this Debate, the conditions of the casual wards of the country and the conditions of the people who go there are certainly better than they were during the Labour Administration.

Mr. GREENWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me which Vote provided the money to be spent on casual wards?

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member put the question to me, and the fact remains—

Mr. GREENWOOD: You have no power to spend money.

Sir K. WOOD: —that at the instance of my right hon. Friend, as I stated in the very few minutes when I was speaking the other night, a considerable sum of money has been spent in connection with casual wards in this country. I would explain to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood), who has only just come in, and has not followed my argument, that when I hear accusations of inhumanity, my answer is that conditions to-day are far better—

Miss LAWRENCE: I said so.

Sir K. WOOD: —and there is a more humane system of administration, than under the Labour Government. Having said that I will deal with the Amend-
ment on the Paper. I have only dealt with the other matter in view of the statements which have been made. In her Amendment the hon. Lady is proposing that it shall be obligatory upon the Minister of Health to make orders combining authorities which deal with vagrants. How far will that advance the objects which, I suppose, every Member desires to see attained? In the first place, it would require orders to be made combining any two or more councils for this work, and would require that every county should be included in some combination or another. There is no possible justification for such peremptory action.

Mr. SHEPHERD: But many are asking for it.

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member will find that such cases are provided for in the Bill. If he will turn to Clause 2 he will see in Sub-section (2) two proposal for dealing with this particular problem. There is a good deal to be gained by combination, and, in the first place, if two or more authorities desire to combine, all they have to do is to apply to the Minister, who may make an order combining the areas for the purposes named in the sub-section. Then, further, we say that if there is no such application, but it yet appears to the Minister that a combination of two or more councils would tend to diminish the expense, or otherwise prove to the public or local advantage, he may make an order combining the areas. Obviously then, there is full provision for dealing with these cases, because if authorities do not agree among themselves to combine, but it appears to the Minister that it is desirable or in the public interest that they should combine, he has ample powers under which to issue an order; but to say that, without any regard to the particular circumstances, an order combining areas must be made, whether it be necessary or desirable, is obviously to make a suggestion which would not commend itself to the great majority of hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Darlington, who speaks with knowledge, and spoke to-night without prejudice, himself referred to certain guardians as doing their work well, and obviously in cases of that kind where there would be a transfer to the larger authorities there is no neces-
sity for such an order to be made. But there is ample provision in this sub-section for authorities to come together for this purpose, and if they do not combine the Minister, who has considerable knowledge, and has his inspectors up and down the country, may make an order if he thinks it to the public advantage to do so. Obviously the provisions of the Bill are far preferable and more in the interest of the casuals themselves than the proposals in the Amendment moved by the hon. Lady, who has put her case upon such flimsy and inaccurate grounds, and I ask that the Amendment should be rejected.

Mr. MARDY JONES: The Parliamentary Secretary has, as usual, dodged the main issue, and has twitted us with the statement that the present administration is much more humane than the Labour administration or any previous administration. May I point out that the Ministry of Health under the Labour Government held office for eight months only?

Siir K. WOOD: Plenty of time.

Mr. JONES: The time at their disposal was very limited. I think the Labour Minister acted on the policy of the present Minister by taking first things first, and as he had to devote his attention to even bigger issues, this one had to wait its turn. The present Minister foreshadowed the present Bill two years ago, but it has been postponed until the present time. There is a very strong case for the Amendment. The Parliamentary Secretary did not seem to realise that a good number of these casuals tramp the length and breadth of the country and are a kind of through traffic in many local areas. Even a county is not a big enough area to enable us to deal adequately with this question, because the number in any given county at a given moment will be comparatively small, and from the point of view of administration and of the expenses of administration, very large areas ought to be formed in many parts of the country. Unless we have a combination of adjacent counties and county boroughs, we shall not cope with this problem.
I wish to call attention to a new aspect of the problem of casuals which ought to be taken seriously and has a bearing upon the Amendment. If the Amendment
be accepted, local authorities dealing with vagrancy will be able to cope with it much more effectually than will be possible under the provisions of the Bill. The hon. Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence) made a statement, which has not been challenged, that in 1926 there were some 9,000 casuals, and that during the present year the number has gone up to some 12,000. I predict that unless the Government do more to solve the problem of unemployment the number will go up very rapidly in the course of the next year or two. Regretful though the fact be, there it is. Casuals are being rapidly created; a new type of casual is being created through the utter failure of the Government to deal with the unemployment problem.
We have in the mining industry alone over 300,000 able-bodied miners who are young, middle-aged and old, and who are out of work. It is true that the majority of them are drawing unemployment benefit, but an ever-increasing number of them go out of benefit because they have been idle for a long time, in some cases for one, two, three, four and even five years. Consequently they are entirely outside the scope of the Unemployment Acts, and they do not draw any income at all from those funds. The Minister of Health, by his rigorous policy of refusing to grant Poor Law relief to able-bodied miners who are without any source of income whatever, has driven thousands of miners away from their homes, and they have been compelled to tramp the country. In this way the great army of casuals have been recruited from the ranks of the healthy, able-bodied unemployed simply because the Ministry of Health have decided not to relieve any able-bodied person.
In view of this new type of casual which has been created the Amendment

which we are discussing is all the more necessary. If the Committee adopt this Amendment we shall be able to combine and treat the casual in a way that he has never been treated before. The case which has been put before the Committee by the hon. Member for East Ham North cannot be answered, and for the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us that her arguments are of a flimsy character shows that the right hon. Gentleman has not the decency to realise that the casual is as much a citizen as he himself or the Minister of Health, and is entitled to as much humane treatment. We all know the kind of treatment which has been meted out to casuals in the past, and some of the greatest men in our modern literature have taken up this question. Mr. W. H. Davies, one of our well-known poets has described the life of the casual in graphic language, and Mr. Patrick McGill has also written about the casual. The way in which casuals are treated in this country has been exposed by some of our greatest men, and when we get an opportunity of dealing with this subject in our legislation the Government turn down our proposals. Why do the Government adopt this course? Simply because the casual is not a political factor, and therefore does not weigh with the Government. It is a scandalous state of things that the Government should treat so flimsily an important Amendment of this kind. I hope the country will take note of this point, and realise that the present Government in this matter, as in everything else they have touched, have failed to realise that they are encouraging the creation of a new type of casual by their treatment of the unemployed miners in this country.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 131: Noes, 202.

Division No. 64.]
AYES.
[8.31 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Dennison, R.


Adamson, W. M. (Statt., Cannock)
Buchanan, G.
Dunnico, H.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Cape, Thomas
Edge, Sir Willian.


Ammon, Charles George
Charleton, H. C.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Cluse, W. S.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh univer.)


Baker. Walter
Connolly, M.
Fenby, T. D.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Cove, W. G.
Forrest, W.


Batey, Joseph
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Gibbins, Joseph


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Crawfurd, H. E.
Gillett, George M.


Bellamy, A.
Dalton, Hugh
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)


Benn, Wedgwood
Davies, David (Montgomery)
Greenall, T.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)


Broad,. F. A.
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Bromfield, William
Day, Harry
Griffith, F. Kingsley


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Grundy, T. W.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Stamford, T. W.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
March, S.
Stephen, Campbell


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Maxton, James
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Hardle, George D.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Strauss, E. A.


Harris, Percy A.
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Sullivan, J.


Hayday, Arthur
Murnin, H.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnlly)
Naylor, T. E.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Oliver, George Harold
Thurtle, Ernest


Hirst, G. H.
Palin, John Henry
Tinker, John Joseph


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Paling, W.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Hollins, A.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Ponsonby, Arthur
Viant, S. P.


Hudson. J. H. (Huddersfield)
Potts, John S.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Riley, Ben
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Ritson, J.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R.,Elland)
Wellock, Wilfred


Kelly, W. T.
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Westwood, J.


Kennedy, T.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Kirkwood, D.
Scrymgeour, E
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Lansbury, George
Scurr, John
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Lawrence, Susan
Sexton, James
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Lawson, John James
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Lee, F.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Windsor, Walter


Livingstone, A. M.
Shinwell, E.
Wright, W.


Longbottom, A. W.
Sltch, Charles H.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Lowth, T.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.



Lunn, William
Smillie, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.-


Mackinder, W.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhlthe)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Whiteley.


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Snell, Harry



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Albery, Irving James
Dawson, Sir Philip
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Long, Major Eric


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Looker, Herbert William


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lougher, Lewis


Astor, Viscountess
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Luce. Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Atkinson, C.
Fielden, E. B.
Lumley, L. R.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Finburgh, S.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Maclntyre, Ian


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Macmillan, Captain H.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Macquisten, F. A.


Berry, Sir George
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Bethel, A.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Betterton, Henry B.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Goff, Sir Park
Malone, Major P. B.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Grace, John
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Grattan, Doyle, Sir N.
Margesson, Captain D.


Brass, Captain W.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Briscoe, Richard George
Grotrian, H. Brent
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M


Buchan, John
Hamilton, Sir George
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hanbury, C.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Bullock, Captain M.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Burman, J. B.
Hartlngton, Marquess of
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph


Campbell, E. T.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Nelson, Sir Frank


Carver, Major W. H.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Cassels, J. D.
Haslam, Henry C.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Chapman, Sir S.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Nuttall, Ellis


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Christie, J. A.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Clarry, Reginald George
Herberts.(York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'bj
Penny, Frederick George


Clayton, G. C.
Hilton, Cecil
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Perring, Sir William George


Cooper, A. Duff
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon. Barnstaple)


Couper, J. B.
Hume. Sir G. H.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Phillpson, Mabel


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Hurd, Percy A.
Pilcher, G.


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Illffe, Sir Edward M.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Radford, E. A.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Raine, Sir Walter


Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Ramsden, E.


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Kennedy. A. R. (Preston)
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovll)
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Remer, J. R.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lamb, J. Q.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.




Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Ropner, Major L.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Watts, Sir Thomas


Salmon, Major I.
Storry-Deans, R.
Wells, S. R.


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Sandeman, N. Stewart
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Templeton, W. P.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Sanderson, Sir Frank
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Sandon, Lord
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Withers, John James


Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell.
Womersley, W. J.


Savery, S. S.
Tinne, J. A.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Rentrew, W.)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wright, Brig.-General W. O.


Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough



Skelton, A. N.
Waddington, R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Major Sir Wtlliam Cope and Captain Wallace.


Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W



Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Warrender, Sir Victor

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am going to ask my Friends to follow me in the Lobby against Clause 2 standing part of the Bill. I do so because I have had to ask several Friends of mine not to press perfectly sound and important Amendments, and we have got through what we thought were in many cases important issues in about an hour or an hour and a half. We have been driven to do this because, unless we do so, we shall never be able to discuss the most important Clause of

the Bill, and, although Clause 2 may be a perfectly sound Clause, I ask my Friends to vote against it as a protest against the extreme rigour of the Guillotine, and the proved impossibility now of ever debating this Bill. On these grounds I think we are entitled to vote against every Clause when the Question that it stand part of the Bill comes before the Committee.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 209; Noes, 126.

Division No. 65.]
AYES.
[8.39 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cooper, A. Duff
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Albery, Irving James
Couper, J. B.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hamilton, Sir George


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hanbury, C.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Cowan. Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn, N.)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Astor, Viscountess
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hartington, Marquess of


Atkinson, C.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Balfour, George (Hempstead)
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Haslam, Henry C.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Berry, Sir George
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovll)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian


Bethel, A.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Bestterton, Henry B.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Herbert, S. (York, N.R.,Scar. & Wh'by)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hilton, Cecil


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Brass, Captain W.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hudson, Capt. A. U.M. (Hacknev. N.)


Briscoe, Richard George
Ellis, R. G.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Hurd, Percy A.


Buchan, John
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Illffe, Sir Edward M.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Fielden, E. B.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Bullock, Captain M.
Finburgh, S.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Burman, J. B.
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Campbell, E. T.
Forrest, W.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Carver, Major W. H.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Cassels, J. D.
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth.S.)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Lamb. J. O.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Chapman, Sir S.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Livingstone, A. M.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Goff, Sir Park
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Christie, J. A.
Grace, John
Long, Major Eric


Clarry, Reginald George
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Looker, Herbert William


Clayten, G. C.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Lougher, Lewis


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Grotrian, H. Brent
Lumley, L. R.


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Phillipson, Mabel
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Macintyre, I.
Pilcher, G.
Stuart, Crichton, Lord C.


Macmllian, Captain H.
Pliditch, Sir Philip
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Macquisten, F. A.
Radford, E. A.
Templeton, W. P.


Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Raine, Sir Walter
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Ramsden, E.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Reid, Capt. Cunnlngham(Warrington)
Tinne, J. A.


Malone, Major P. B.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Mannlngham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Remer, J. R.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Margesson, Captain D.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Waddlngton, R.


Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Ropner, Major L.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Salmon, Major I.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Moreing, Captain A. H.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Wells, S. R.


Nelson, Sir Frank
Sandon, Lord
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple.


Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Guttave D.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Savery, S. S.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D.Mcl.(Renfrew, W.)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut. Colonel George


Nuttall, Ellis
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Withers, John James


O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Skelton, A. N.
Womersley, W. J.


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Penny, Frederick George
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Klnc'dlne, C.)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wright, Brig.-General W. D.


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.



Perring, Sir William George
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Major Sir William Cope and Mr. F. C. Thomson.


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Storry-Deans, R.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Scrymgeour, E.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Scurr, John


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hirst, G. H.
Sexton, James


Ammon, Charles George
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hollins, A.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Baker, Walter
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Shiels, Dr. Drummond.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shinwell, E.


Batey, Joseph
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sitch, Charles H


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bellamy, A.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smillie, Robert


Benn, Wedgwood
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhlthe)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kennedy, T.
Snell, Harry


Broad, F. A.
Kirk wood, D.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bromfield, William
Lansbury, George
Stamford, T. W.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Lawrence, Susan
Stephen, Campbell


Buchanan, G.
Lawson, John James
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Cape, Thomas
Lee, F.
Strauss, E. A.


Charleton, H. C.
Longbottom, A. W.
Sullivan, J.


Cluse, W. S.
Lowth, T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Connolly, M.
Lunn, William
Thurtle, Ernest


Cove, W. G.
Mackinder, W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Crawfurd, H. E.
MacLaren, Andrew
Tomllnson, R. P.


Dalton, Hugh
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Davies, David (Montgomery)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Viant, S. P.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Day, Harry
March, S.
Watson, W. M (Dunfermline)


Dennison, R.
Maxton, James
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dunnico, H.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Edge, Sir William
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah


Fenby, T. D.
Murnln, H.
Wellock, Wilfred


Gibbins, Joseph
Nayfor, T. E.
Westwood, J.


Gillett, George M.
Oliver, George Harold
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Palin, John Henry
Whiteley, W.


Greenall, T.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Grentell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Griffiths, F. Kingsley
Potts, John S.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Richardson, H. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Windsor, Waiter


Grundy, T. W.
Riley Ben
Wright, W.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Ritson, J.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hardle, George D.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)



Harris, Percy A.
Saklatvala, Shapurjl
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hayday, Arthur
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes


Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(Administrative Schemes.)

Mr. GEORGE HALL: I beg to move, in page 3, line 17, to leave out the word
"and" and to insert instead thereof the words
after consultation with the councils of urban and rural districts within the county and the council of every.
This is to allow rural and urban rural district councils to be consulted in connection with the schemes dealt with in the previous Clause. The Clause as it stands simply gives county and county borough councils the power to prepare such schemes. The urban and rural district councils have a grievance against the Minister in so far that they are not even asked to do anything in connection with the preparation of schemes. I am sure the Minister will admit that the rural and urban district councils are a very important part of the machine of local government, but I do not think he has recognised them as he should in the preparation of these schemes. We think both rural and urban councils should be asked to assist in this very important matter. They are important, not only from the point of view of the part they play in connection with local government but also the population and rate-able value of some of the urban councils should command some respect and regard from the Minister. The Rhondda Urban District Council has a population of 167,000 and a rate-able value of £448,000. Some urban councils just outside London have a population almost as large as Rhondda but the rate-able value in the case of Willesden, for instance, is over £1,000,000. These local authorities are not consulted in any way with regard to the provision of these very important schemes.
The same thing might be said with regard to some rural district councils. Chesterfield has a population of 76,000 and Chester-le-Street, 57,000. We have this anomaly, that where we have these branches of local government with these large populations and rate-able values they are not consulted, whereas some county councils with a very much smaller population are asked to prepare the necessary schemes. Rhondda is not consulted, whereas Westmorland, with a population of 65,000, is asked to prepare a scheme; and the same with regard to Hereford and Oxford. In Wales we have some county councils with a population less than 50,000, yet they are asked to prepare schemes, whereas urban and rural councils are not even consulted. If the Minister desires this portion of the
Bill to work smoothly the least he can do is to consult with these very important bodies, or allow the county councils to consult them.

Mr. LOOKER: On a point of Order. The Amendment is practically similar in nature to one in my name, in line 17, after the word "and," to insert the words "the council of every." Am I right in thinking that, this having been called, a general discussion can take place upon it?

The CHAIRMAN: This being the first of the two Amendments on the Order Paper, I called it, but it covers precisely the same ground, and there can be only one discussion.

Mr. LOOKER: It is not material to me or to the urban district councils whether the word "consultation" or the word "conference" is used, but I should like to do what I can to press upon the Committee what I think is the very great desirability of this alteration being made. The county councils are now taking over the Poor Law functions of authorities which have a life-long experience of them and of their requirements, and they have to prepare schemes carrying out those functions, of which they have no official experience. It seems inevitable that there must be omissions, perhaps inadvertent, and various other matters which escape their notice and which, sooner or later, must be put right, and, if they gave the district, councils the opportunity of considering the schemes and making representations with regard to them, many of these matters, which might be of great importance, would be set right before the scheme goes to the Minister. To avoid any conference with district councils is putting a county council in much the same position as a man on whom the function devolves of taking over the management of a large business, with great ramifications, of which he has no experience, and framing a scheme for its future running without consultation with the man who has built the business up and has had a life-long experience of it.
In Clause 39, under very analogous circumstances, there is a duty cast on representatives of the county councils to confer with representatives of the councils of the several districts, and ir
the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, which was the predecessor of this Bill, it was provided that where the formation of areas for assessment was under consideration, the county council must consult the authorities of the rating area. If this consultation takes place, it means that something may be remedied in the scheme which otherwise would have to be remedied later on, in which case the position would be that the county council would send the scheme to the Minister, the Minister would publish it, copies would be sent to the district councils, they would make representations to the Minister about some omission in the scheme, the Minister would pass it on to the county council, the county council would pass it back to the Minister, and the Minister would have to pass it to the administrative council again. So it involves far more time than would be the case if the scheme were submitted to the district councils in the first instance.
If the Amendment is accepted it will do a great deal to promote something which is of great importance in local administration, and that is the spirit of co-operation and good will between these larger authorities and the district authorities. Although in many cases that spirit of good will does exist to an extent which is desirable, there are undoubtedly some in which it does not. Purely on that ground an Amendment of this description is worth putting in, simply because it will do something to promote a feeling and a relationship between many district councils and county councils which not only does not now exist, but which it is vital should exist. There is no desire on the part of the district councils to do anything to cause additional work or additional trouble to the county councils in the preparation of their schemes. They realise perfectly well that they have a tremendous task in front of them which it is desirable to get through as soon as possible.
As far as my own district council is concerned, I am free to state that they have no desire to have an actual conference, but what they suggest is that when the county councils have prepared their scheme, they shall notify the district councils concerned and say: "This is the scheme that we propose. If you have any comments to make upon it, let us have it back again by the end
of the week, and in the absence of any comments upon it by the end of the week, we will send it to the Minister." I think that that would satisfy the district councils, and I suggest to the Minister that it is a very reasonable course to take, and very desirable and reasonable, for the reasons I have given, that these words of the Amendment should be added to the Clause.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall), I think, rather based his case for the Amendment on the ground that it would be discourteous to these important, if minor, authorities not to give them an opportunity of being consulted before a scheme was laid. I am sure I need not say here that the last thing that any prudent Minister of Health should do would be to be discourteous to any local authorities in the country, but my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Looker) has in his very well argued, if I may say so, and reasonable case, put forward other grounds, namely, that, in effect the adoption of this Amendment would render the working of the provisions of the Bill very much more easy than if consultation is omitted from the preliminary stages. I am bound to say that I sympathise very much with the general line of argument which my hon. Friend has used, and indeed, if it were not for one consideration, I should not merely have been prepared to accept an Amendment of this kind, but I think I would have inserted a provision of this sort in the Bill, because it is quite obvious that in the preparation of these schemes, which do affect these minor authorities, it would be advisable, if possible, that their views should be at the disposal of those who make the schemes at the earliest possible moment.
That, I think, is the course which the county councils will take in a great many instances. I think that if they can get their schemes prepared in time they will send a copy to the various county districts with a view to obtaining any comments they may wish to make upon them before they submit them to the Minister. I am sure that they will be well advised to do so. My difficulty in accepting the Amendment is that it would introduce new processes into the various measures which have to be taken in order to bring the scheme into operation after April, 1930.
9.0 p.m.
We are already considerably tied up with time. It will be seen that in the Clause which we are now discussing, the council of every county and county borough have six months, and only six months, after the passing of the Act before they have to submit their schemes to the Minister. Six months, perhaps, may seem a long time, but 1 do not think it will be found in practice that six months is a moment longer than many of these bodies require. It must be remembered, as has been pointed out, indeed, by hon. Members opposite, that they will be new to this work. They will have to familiarise themselves with the problem. I know as a fact that in some cases the officers of these bodies have a great deal to learn about the duties which they will have to perform under this Measure, and I anticipate that quite a lot of preliminary work of informing themselves will have to be gone through by these bodies before they can really begin to prepare their schemes. If one remembers the enormous number of county districts which are to be found in some of the counties—in Lancashire, for instance, there are 121, and in the West Riding of Yorkshire no less than 148 separate county districts—it will be seen that if you make it obligatory upon the county councils to consult before they submit their schemes to the Minister, the inevitable result of that will be that many of the county districts will be writing to the Minister afterwards, and saying: "We never had any opportunity of adequate consultation as was intended by the Act." I do not want that to occur. I do not want to have illusory hopes held up to the county districts, hopes which, perhaps, in some cases might not completely be fulfilled, and it would be a mistake to put in an obligatory provision of this kind.
At the same time, I have been trying to think if there was any other way in which I could meet the obvious point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Essex to bring in these bodies at a rather earlier stage than is provided under the Bill as it now stands, and it would, perhaps, save time if it were made obligatory upon the county councils to send a copy of their scheme to each county district in their area when they
submit it to the Minister. It is provided in Clause 7 that the scheme is to be published in one or more newspapers. I think we might provide, and I am prepared to move, an Amendment when we come to Clause 7 which will impose upon the county councils the duty of communicating a copy of their scheme to each of the county districts within their area, and I hope that that will, at any rate, go some way to meet the difficulty that is anticipated in this Amendment. I would say in conclusion, that I think that any county council which can get a scheme completed in time, that is to say, with a little margin before the six months are out, would be very wise if it were to send a copy to the various county districts within its area, and invite comments before it actually submits its scheme to the Minister.

Mr. CRAWFURD: The right hon. Gentleman's last sentence is the most hopeful in the whole of his speech. He is in rather an awkward position. He admits the force of the arguments for the Amendment, and says himself that it would help the administration of the Bill if local authorities were first consulted, and the only reason why he is not prepared to accept it is that it is necessary to rush this Bill through so quickly—

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The quicker we rush it through the more time they will have.

Mr. CRAWFURD: Might I reply to that argument? The right hon. Gentleman and his Government by bringing forward this Measure in the last Session of Parliament, instead of in the first, are giving people very little time to acquire the necessary knowledge of their duties under it, and the only argument the right hon. Gentleman has against the Amendment is that he has fixed a date which will not afford sufficient time for consultation. What the right hon. Gentleman proposes to do is to issue an instruction to county councils to send a copy of their scheme to district councils, not necessarily for comment and not necessarily that their comments should be acted upon.

Sir K. WOOD: The idea of sending a copy of the scheme is that under the remaining Clauses of the Bill district councils have the right to make repre-
sentations to my right hon. Friend, and the effect of sending a copy earlier would put them in full possession of the case. They would then be able to make any representations they thought necessary to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. CRAWFURD: But is it not possible at a later stage of the Bill to think out some words which will lay down a specified period of time before which the main details should be communicated to local authorities in order to give them a chance of commenting upon them and a chance of their comments being acted upon before the scheme is finally approved? If that were done there would be some chance of agreeing with the Amendment.

Captain MACMILLAN: I have put my name to this Amendment, but I did so before I had seen the Amendment of the Minister of Health which he proposes to move on Clause 7, to the effect that a county council shall send a copy of the scheme to the council of each district in the county. That Amendment seems to me to cover the case of local authorities receiving a copy of a scheme. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to issue an instruction to county boroughs and county councils that they should enter into consultation with the minor authorities in their areas before actually presenting their scheme? If he could do that, it would meet our case very largely.

Sir K. WOOD: We are very anxious to meet the wishes of the various councils, and this is one of the matters on which we desire to meet the wishes of hon. Members. The difficulty is where there are so many councils in an area—over 100. It would obviously be almost impossible, even if there was a further extension of time, for the council to discuss with every one of these minor authorities before they send the scheme to the Minister. Under the Amendment to Clause 7, we propose, if they go right up to the extreme period of six months before they are able to communicate their scheme, that the duty of communicating the scheme to the various councils in the area shall be imposed upon the county council, and we shall see that the minor authorities have adequate time to make representations to my right hon. Friend before he makes an
Order. In the Circular to local authorities explaining the scheme we will also urge upon them the importance of making their proposals as quickly as possible to the Minister of Health, and, if they do so, before the period of six months has elapsed, we shall advise them to communicate the scheme immediately to the councils in the district. By that means we shall assure, as far as is reasonably possible, that councils and district councils will be consulted adequately and at the earliest possible opportunity. We are anxious to receive representations, and in so far as the joint wishes of the county councils on the one hand and the district councils on the other are concerned, the hon. Member who moved the Amendment will feel confident that the proper and reasonable desires of the various councils will be reasonably met by the suggestion.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 4.—(Provisions as to alternative powers of giving assistance.)

Major-General Sir RICHARD LUCE: I beg to move, in page 3, line 28, to leave out from the beginning to the word "any" in line 29.
The object of this Amendment is to remove the option which is given to local authorities in regard to the working of certain parts of the health services and to insure as far as possible that in future those services which can be administered under existing Acts shall be so administered, and not administered by way of poor relief. I have two further Amendments on the Paper dealing with the same point. I realise that they will not completely carry out the transfer of the medical services from the assistance committees, unless certain further action is taken under Clause 5, but if the Amendment is accepted it will leave practically nothing to be done which would not be automatically done under Clause 5, where power is given to the county councils to direct that other parts of their duties shall be transferred to committees other than the assistance committees.
It does not seem that the Minister is carrying out the first of his proposals completely to co-ordinate the medical
services in the area unless this is done. The very first of his proposals two years ago was to co-ordinate medical effort, and to concentrate it. If a large portion of the duties is to be left to the new assistance committee, which is really only taking the place of the old guardians, except, of course, that it is now under a different authority, the effect will not be to divorce the medical service from the other service, although that is so necessary for the effective co-ordination of medical services. The assistance committee does not seem to me to be a really suitable committee to undertake the duties which will be imposed upon it in this way. It will always have, as its first duty, the provision of monetary assistance to the poor in the way that the guardians give it. That is its chief function. There is no doubt that one of the great failures of the guardians in the past has been the administration of the medical service. There have been, of course, notable exceptions, but on the whole, speaking from a professional point of view, one cannot say that the medical services for the poor provided by the guardians have been anything like as good as those administered through voluntary hospitals and so on.
Therefore, I think it must be admitted that it would be advantageous to transfer such duties as are concerned with medical matters—education comes into it also—to those committees which are already devoting their time to, and have been brought up to deal with, these particular subjects in the best possible way. It is difficult to train a new committee in two distinct duties. You are going to start a new assistance committee, and that committee will have to start with the ordinary relief of the poor as its chief function. It will have to be trained in the duty of medical relief. You will be duplicating the work. And you will have to train the committee in work in which other committees are already trained. Moreover, you will have a medical officer of health who is the adviser of the health committees and other committees that deal with these matters. He will be compelled to divide his attention; he will have to be one of the officers in direct touch with this new assistance committee, a duty which it is not really necessary
for him to have. Apart from that, it would be only fair to the poor sick to give them the full advantage in every way of what assistance and work and machinery are already set up, or are rapidly being set up under the Acts enumerated in Clause 4. Otherwise they will be still going on under an inferior service such as that which is provided in Poor Law institutions now.
Then, again, it is admitted by everyone that something should be done to remove the stigma which results from pauperism, especially in the case of those to whom the stigma is attached merely from the fact that they are sick or are suffering from some disability. It will be difficult to do that unless there is a divorce between the medical cases and the cases of paupers who are paupers only. There is one further point. Until you can divorce these two services it will be impossible to carry out the new organisation that is required and the co-ordination that is so essential between the voluntary system and the medical systems of the country. That is one of the most important questions to be faced. It will be very difficult to achieve that end until you have one definite authority in each area by whom the co-ordination can be organised. In the matter of details, in deciding how it can be done, I realise that there are certain difficulties. Poor Law hospitals at the present time are very often in the same building as the rest of the Poor Law institutions, and one can realise that there are difficulties in dividing buildings between two authorities. But it seems to me that the object of the schemes which will have to be prepared should be as far as possible to divert the various hospitals and institutions to different duties. That cannot be done as long as each hospital or each institution is doing all sorts of different work in the way that the Poor Law hospitals are doing it now.
The Minister of Health, in his opening speech on the Second Beading of the Bill, expressed himself as favourable to to the eventual divorce of the medical service from the rest of the Poor Law, but he gave two objections. The first objection and the, most important was that many of the local authorities are not now ready for and have not the machinery to carry out the various services as they ought to be
carried out under these Acts. We in one of our Amendments have put in a proviso which will get over that difficulty to a great extent, by allowing the Minister to give a time limit to the authorities which are not yet ready. Within that time limit they could still work on their existing method of pauper relief until they are ready. That would give them an incentive to get ready as soon as possible. Otherwise a refractory or reactionary area might go on indefinitely under the present system, and there would be no possibility of making any progress at all. One can quite realise that the assistance committees, once started on medical work and on looking after the sick people under their control, will be very unwilling to give up their work. We shall have over again all the business that we have now in getting rid of the guardians. The committees will be very loath to give up their work, and the various councils will have great difficulty in reorganising the work so as to do away with a large part of what is undertaken by the Assistance Committee. The greatest objection has been removed by the proviso which we propose to put in.
The other objection that the Minister raised was that he was loath to interfere with the local authorities in the management of their own affairs, and that he would prefer to give them the option to work in the way that they thought best. But it seems to me that if there is a danger of their not working according to the best method—it must be agreed that the best method is by the divorce of the medical service from the other services—it is not right to give them this option simply in order that they may have their freedom. If it is desired to give them their freedom simply because they are not ready, we have provided for that, but if it is desired in order that they may act in a reactionary manner, or go slowly without developing along the lines which everybody agrees they should develop, then I do not think it is wise to give them that freedom. For these reasons, I am moving the Amendments that we have put down. We are engaged in a very important piece of work in the reform of the Poor Law, and it does seem that to halt half-way, as it were, would be a great pity, and that it would be very unwise to leave it where it is. Of
course, I realise that the vast majority of local authorities will adopt the better method, but it does not seem right to allow those who are unwilling to do so, to work in a reactionary manner.

Mr. WEBB: This is one of those points, I think, on which we ought to respond to the request of the Minister that we should really try to improve his Bill. I do most heartily and with absolute sincerity support the Amendment. I am not going to repeat the points which the hon. and gallant Member has made, because he has put them extremely well. There are some other points which I should like the Minister to consider before he gives a decision. The right hon. Gentleman said with reference to this matter in his Second Reading speech, that the local authorities felt a very natural resentment against being told how they were to do their business, and he wished as far as possible to leave it to them as to how they should do it. I remember that objection being expressed on the Maclean Committee, though I was not a member of that Committee. I should like to distinguish between the objections made. There is the objection to prescribing in an Act of Parliament that this or that function should be carried out by such-and-such a committee. To such an objection I think we ought to defer as far as we can. But it is a much more important matter when it comes to the question of the rights of citizenship. I can understand allowing a municipality or town council to decide by what particular piece of machinery it will carry out a function, but that is a different thing from allowing the town council to decide whether they shall maintain or decrease the rights of a citizen.
An alternative is given under Clause 4, which will be taken by some councils and not by others, as to whether they should treat this public assistance under one or other of the seven Acts as a matter of municipal duty, carrying with it no stigma of pauperism or disqualification or inferiority of status, or whether they should give that same assistance under the Poor Law with the stigma, disqualification and inferiority of status. If the Bill is passed as it now stands, you will have the anomalous situation that in one county a man will receive this form of Government assistance for himself or his dependants, and he will still remain a citizen free from disqualification or in-
ferior status. In the next county a man in exactly the same circumstances will be allowed, by the Bill as it now stands, to receive that assistance only in the form of poor relief, receiving exactly the same assistance out of exactly the same fund and the same rates, but in this case it is called poor relief and the recipient will be subjected to all manner of inferiority. It is not merely that there is the disqualification for serving on a council which the right hon. Gentleman's Bill is going to enlarge, but there is the stigma of pauperism involved.
On that let me observe that the biggest reason why this public assistance of a medical character is given is that it is in the interests of the quickest possible restoration of the health of the patient that he should go for treatment at the earliest possible moment. We give very large sums out of the rates to deal with cancer, for instance. In some places that is done under the Public Health Acts and in other places under the Poor Law. If we are going to do that, the only sensible way is to induce the unfortunate people to come at the earliest possible moment before they are incapacitated. The difficulty is that they do not come at once, and we ought to induce them to do so. Unless they do that, you will have the mortality intensified by delay. I want them to come as quickly as possible, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does. I am sure that to give it as poor relief is not the way to induce these people to come as quickly as possible. As to the status of pauperism, I think hon. Members do not realise that that does not merely mean some imaginary or sentimental stigma which we may disregard and largely remove by enabling the pauper to vote. It means a great deal more than that. It means a positive legal disability to which the pauper, as such, is subjected as is no, other citizen. He is actually deprived of some valuable rights in the way of protection because he is a pauper, and for no other reason, whereas if he gets the same amount of public assistance under any- one of these Acts he is not a pauper and he has all these rights.
Let me give one or two instances. It is said by law that if a patient goes even into a voluntary hospital and receives medical treatment as a mere matter of
charity, nevertheless he has a right of action against the hospital authorities and the servants of the hospital if there is any gross negligence. The other day I saw in a newspaper a case tried in connection with a maternity home, and though the action was not successful, the right of action was not denied. I do not want to suggest that any considerable amount of damages is going to be obtained, but it is a very valuable safeguard that there should be this liability for an action in case of negligence. Of that, the pauper is deprived, and you will have the anomaly of patients in the same institution, one in one bed and one in the other, the one having full rights and the other being negligibly dealt with with impunity, and without having the right of action in the Courts for negligence. That is a very real diminution of the citizen's status. It may be that it is up to people not to be paupers, but what cannot be defended is the suggestion that all over England, in one county and in one borough, a man receiving assistance will be a pauper and subject to inferiority of status and left undefended against negligence by the superintendent or nurse—I do not like to say doctors, although there have been such cases—and in the next county a similar man receiving the same assistance in the same kind of institution will have full citizen rights. I do not think that can possibly be defended, and it takes the issue altogether out of the category of the town clerk who raises an objection that the town council do not like to be dictated to as to which committee should be concerned with these particular duties.
I would like to defer to that feeling, but it is hardly fair that the desires of this, that, or the other town council, should be allowed to deprive a number of citizens of their full rights. I cite another case. At the present time boards of guardians make use both of voluntary hospitals and public health hospitals on payment for their patients. They will continue doing so. The public assistance committee will, no doubt, have the wisdom, if it has not a good hospital of its own, to make use of some other hospital, voluntary or otherwise, on pay meat. Will it be believed that the question of whether the person sent by a Poor Law authority to that outside hospital—it may be a public hospital or a
voluntary hospital—is a pauper or not, will depend on the method of payment to the hospital? I am quoting from the Minister's documents. If payment is made per patient, if each patient sent to the hospital is paid for, as is often the case—then, by direction of the Minister, that is entered as out-door relief to that person and he is therefore a pauper. If, on the other hand, an annual sum of £100 or £1,000 a year is paid to the hospital in order that all the Poor Law authority's patients may be taken in, that is not entered as poor relief, and the person concerned is not a pauper. If the Poor Law authority changes from one method to the other, the status of the patient changes as the method of payment is changed.
That is not the kind of thing that should continue. There should not be this very real difference in status, this tangible difference in right, between two patients, according to the methods by which they are treated but that system will continue unless some such Amendment as this is adopted. The Minister might consider whether he could not even add something to the Amendment, because in the proviso which the hon. and gallant Member intends to move later—
Provided that if upon representation made to him by any council the Minister is satisfied that the council is not at present able to provide the required assistance under the several Acts named, the scheme may, for such period us the Minister shall determine, provide for the discharge of these functions by way of poor relief.
I should like to see a date fixed. It should be done within five years. But I suggest in any case that some such Amendment as this is necessary in order to avoid an undesirable state of geographical patchiness over England in so important a matter as the citizens' rights of these people.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot help admiring the Parliamentary astuteness of the right hon. Gentleman, who has found an opportunity on this Amendment, of treating us to at least a part of the speech which he intended to deliver on a later Amendment in his own name. Perhaps there may be an opportunity of taking that Amendment and, therefore, I will not enter at length into the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but I think I must say this—
that in his account of the differences between the treatment of the pauper and of those who are not destitute, he has rather overstated the case. Although I do not say that there is no difference in regard to the legal liabilities of the two bodies concerned, it is not as great as he represents. I can tell him of a recent case in which a Metropolitan board of guardians was sued for damages in regard to a boy whose arm had been injured, and they settled the case with the Judge's approval by paying £1,000.

Mr. WEBB: The plaintiff had no case.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Then it seems to me that the guardians must have been extraordinarily wanting in their duty to the ratepayers if they paid away £1,000 where there was no case. On the other side, the case of the other bodies—the public health authorities or voluntary hospitals—is by no means quite that which the right hon. Gentleman's words might seem to imply. It has been held that a public health authority is not responsible, for instance, where a doctor has discharged a patient from a fever hospital improperly. Again, the governors of a voluntary hospital are not responsible where negligence has been alleged on the part of a nurse acting under the orders of a doctor. Therefore, although the right hon. Gentleman's point is theoretically sound, in practice there is not really the great difference between the two classes of case which he sought to show. Now let me come to the more specific point of the actual Amendment. There I cannot help thinking that we are to some extent at cross purposes and that in reality there is no difference between those who have moved and supported the Amendment, and the policy of the Government. Let no hon. Member run away with the impression that the Government desire that those who have been treated under the Poor Law in the past, in the case of medical relief, should continue to be treated in that way.
Our policy, the policy of the Ministry of Health—at any rate as it is conducted at present—is exactly what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Derby (Sir R. Luce) desires that it should be. We desire that people who are sick shall be treated according to the nature of their sickness, and not according to whether they are destitute or otherwise.
It is perfectly true that that policy cannot be carried out completely, that we cannot achieve the improvements in the health services which form part of the objects of this Measure, until the power which is given under Clause 4 has been actually taken advantage of by local authorities. Of course we desire that local authorities should take advantage of it at the earliest possible moment. The right hon. Gentleman knows that it is customary when a Measure of this sort has reached the Statute Book to send out a circular letter from the Ministry of Health to the local authorities calling attention to particular points in the Act and indicating the view of the Ministry as to the intention of the Act and the way in which that intention should be carried out. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he says that what the local authorities resent is, not that Parliament should impose certain functions on them, but that having imposed those functions by the Act it should go on to say by what committee the functions should be carried out. That is what they object to, but that is not in question here. The question here is whether we are to impose functions on them or not.
It is asked why do we not make this Clause mandatory. I should have thought that there was a very obvious and simple reason and one which the right hon. Gentleman when, to use his own words, he "thinks about it," will recognise as absolutely sound. You have to take things as they are at this moment. Things as they are at this moment do not allow this arrangement to be carried out. Some time must be given to local authorities to make necessary adjustments. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Mover of the Amendment has pointed out, you have a number of mixed institutions. You have institutions in which there are sick people, sometimes being treated in a separate building, sometimes in the same building as other people who are not sick, and there are different kinds of sickness. In order to get the full advantage and effect of the reform that we are proposing, you have to allow the authorities who will be responsible in future, the county councils, to make a survey, not only of the needs, but also
of the existing institutions, and you have to consider how those institutions could best be adapted in order to carry out these functions; but that, of course, may mean vast structural alteration, and it is impossible to say that they should immediately carry out the powers given under this Clause, because obviously a certain amount of time must elapse, first for them to consider what is wanted, and then for them to make the necessary arrangements.
Therefore, it will be quite impossible to make this mandatory without giving, as my hon. and gallant Friend clearly saw, the Minister power to suspend it. Is it necessary to say, first of all, that a body shall do so and so, and then that the Minister shall have power to suspend that mandatory provision, when you know very well that it must be suspended everywhere, not because there may not be institutions which can be adapted—although there will be a certain proportion of counties where the institutions do not even exist, and where they will have to be built to carry out these functions—but because, even when they do exist, they must be adapted, and the first thing the Minister will have to do will be to suspend the mandatory provisions of this Clause? I do not think that that would be a wise thing to do. But having made perfectly clear what the policy of the Government is, and that really, as far as policy is concerned, there is in this matter no difference between us and even the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I would say that if my hon. and gallant Friend means by his Amendment that he wants a sort of demonstration of that policy, that it should be made more clear that that is the policy of the Government, I would be willing to give further consideration to that point. I cannot adduce words at this moment to enable me to put them into any form which could be adopted as an Amendment now, but I will give further consideration to the point between now and the Report stage, and if further words can be found to make the intentions of the Government more clear, I shall be very happy to have them inserted then.

Mr. WEBB: May I just say that it is not merely medical difference that is involved?

Mr. CRAWFURD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if his concluding words mean that, in the Amendment which he proposes to make at a subsequent date, he will say in effect that the purpose of this Amendment shall be carried out unless there are reasons to prevent it being done at the moment, that he will make this mandatory except in those circumstances where it is not possible owing to the accommodation not being there?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I could not put what I said in those words, which seem to me to be going a great deal further than what I did say, but I think I made clear to the Committee what I meant. I will try and see if I can think of words which will make it more clear that the policy of the Government was that local authorities should pursue this plan as and when facilities were open to them to do so.

Sir R. LUCE: In view of the sympathetic way in which the right hon. Gentleman has treated this Amendment and of his promise to reconsider the point, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Captain MACMILLAN: I beg to move, in page 3, line 30, to leave out the words "way of poor relief," and to insert instead thereof the words:
the discharge of the functions transferred under this part of this Act.
This Amendment raises only a very small point and is really a drafting Amendment. Nowhere else in this Bill do these words "by way of poor relief" appear, and I think it would be better to put in the words I have proposed.

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend and myself were not quite clear, when we saw this Amendment on the Paper, what the intentions of my hon. and gallant Friend were. Now I understand that it is more of a drafting Amendment than anything else, and we will consider, in conjunction with the Parliamentary draftsman, the point he has raised and see whether it is suitable to insert the words proposed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir HENRY SLESSER: I beg to move, in page 3, line 39, at the end, to insert the words:
(viii) Or any other enactment mentioned in the scheme.
The object of this Amendment—and there is a similar Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Captain Macmillan)—is to enlarge the scope of the alternative Statutes. The Clause means, I understand, that if the Local Government Act or the other Measures mentioned be amended, those amended Measures are taken, together with the original Measures, as one method whereby the assistance may be given in contradistinction to poor relief. But what has been in our minds is that it may well be that there are other Statutes which either may exist or be passed in the future which cannot be described as Amendments to the Statutes there mentioned. Let me mention one or two which occur to me as instances. There is the question, first, of the old age pensions legislation, and it may well be that old age pensions legislation will at some time provide for persons who may at present be having relief by way of poor relief as aged persons. They do not appear to be governed by any of the classes of Statutes here mentioned. That is one case. It may also be the case similarly with regard to the administration of widows' pensions, if the scheme becomes enlarged; and, finally, there is the question of the able-bodied. There you have already the Unemployed Workmen Act, and you may in future have other legislation dealing with the able-bodied unemployed, who might be persons who might be assisted by way of poor relief or by virtue of some Act dealing with the able-bodied which gave functions to the local authorities, such as the Unemployed Workmen Act.
What we are suggesting is this, that it does not in any way tie either the Government or the local authorities necessarily to include these matters in any particular scheme. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the matter must be left elastic, but we should like to know whether, seeing that there may be other Statutes passed, and it may be a long time before further legislation is introduced, dealing with different classes of indigent persons who may be assisted either by way of poor relief or by some of the forms of legislation I have in-
dicated, it would not be well to contemplate the possibility of alternative assistance not included in the Acts dealing with public health, mental deficiency, and so on set forth in the Clause. I cannot quite see why those particular Acts are chosen as the alternative.
I am not wedded, and I do not suppose the hon. and gallant Member is, to this particular form of words, and it may be that this is not the appropriate way of doing it, but I would ask the Government whether a little more elasticity might not here be given, so that, if contingencies arise, it will be possible within the ambit of the scheme contemplated under this Clause, to deal with other alternative legislation that is not in the Bill. Otherwise, the Government may be in this dilemma, that with every intention in the world of transferring the Poor Law functions to the local government functions, if I may use the term, they will find that they are limited to the seven Acts here set out, and that any scheme which included any other Act would be ultra vires unless a new Act were introduced. So I am appealing for more elasticity. It may be said that the scheme once drafted will he the final scheme when approved under Clause 7, which deals with the approval of schemes, but as I understand it, it may be necessary from time to time to amend the scheme, and, if there is no power to amend the scheme, there ought to be. Therefore, in future, when some new legislation comes into operation, there ought to be powers to deal with that situation, so that the Government will not have to come back to Parliament to get powers, but that there will be sufficient elasticity under the scheme to deal with any alternative assistance that may conic along.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. and learned Member is troubled lest under the provisions of this Clause there should be too great rigidity, and that hereafter some new statutes—I am not certain whether he had in mind any existing statutes—might come in the same category as the other seven Acts which are mentioned in the Clause. That was a, matter which engaged the attention of my Department when the Bill was being drafted, but it did not occur to us to put in a provision that any new legislation which might be passed hereafter should be permitted to be put in the scheme without the express sanction of Parliament. Surely, if we contemplate new legislation, the answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman is that that new legislation will naturally, if it is so desired, contain a provision which will add it to the seven Acts which are named here. That, of course, can be done because the administrative scheme can under Clause 109 be modified from time to time. With regard to existing legislation, it might be of course that there is some Act which has been omitted from the list, and I thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman had gone sufficiently into the existing statutes to be able to name one. Some legislation has been omitted, namely, the Lunacy Acts. The reason they have been omitted from the list is that they have been the subject of a recent investigation by a Royal Commission which has made recommendations, and we are waiting an opportunity to introduce legislation, and that will be the time to add the amending Act to the Acts which appear here.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 129: Noes, 216.

Division No. 66.]
AYES.
[10.1 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Dennison, R.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Dunnico, H.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Buchanan, G.
Edge, Sir William


Ammon, Charles George
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Cape, Thomas
Fenby, T. D.


Baker, Walter
Charleton, H. C.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Cluse, W. S.
Gibbins, Joseph


Batey, Joseph
Connolly, M.
Gillett, George M.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Cove, W. G.
Greenall, T.


Bellamy, A.
Crawfurd, H. E.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)


Benn, Wedgwood
Dalton, Hugh
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Davies, David (Montgomery)
Griffith, F. Kingsley


Broad, F. A.
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Bromfield, William
Day, Harry
Grundy, T. W.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
March, S.
Stamford, T. W.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Maxton, James
Stephen, Campbell


Hardle, George D.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Harris, Percy A.
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Strauss, E. A.


Hayday, Arthur
Murnin, H.
Sullivan, J.


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Naylor, T. E.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Hirst, G. H.
Oliver, George Harold
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Palin, John Henry
Thurtle, Ernest


Hollins, A.
Paling, W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Parkinson, John Allan (Wigan)
Tomlinson, R. P.


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Viant, S. P.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Potts, John S.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Riley, Ben
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Kelly, W. T.
Ritson, J.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Kennedy, T.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Kirkwood, P
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Wellock, Wilfred


Lansbury, George
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Westwood, J.


Lawrence, Susan
Scurr, John
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Lawson, John James
Sexton, James
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Lee, F.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Longbottom, A. W.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Lowth, T.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Lunn, William
Shinwell, E.
Windsor, Walter


Mackinder, W.
Sitch, Charles H.
Wright, W.


MacLaren, Andrew
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Smillie, Robert



MacNeill-Weir, L.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Whiteley.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Albery, Irving James
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hudson, R. S.(Cumberland, Whiteh'n)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hume, Sir G. H.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Hurd, Percy A.


Astor, Viscountess
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Illfle, Sir Edward M.


Atkinson, C.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Iveagh, Countess of


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Ellis, R. G.
James Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Wenton-s.-M.)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke Ncw'gton)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).


Berry, Sir George
Fielden, E. B.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Bethel, A.
Finburgh, S.
Lamb, J. Q.


Betterton, Henry B.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Forrest, W.
Long, Major Eric


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Lougher, Lewis


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Lumley, L. R.


Brass, Captain W.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lynn, Sir R. J.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Galbraith, J. F. W.
MacAndrew Major Charles Glen


Briscoe, Richard George
Ganzoni, Sir John
Macintyre, Ian


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Macmillan, Captain H.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Glimour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Macquisten, F. A.


Buchan, John
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Goff, Sir Park
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Bullock, Captain M.
Gower, Sir Robert
Malone, Major P. B.


Burman, J. B.
Grace, John
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Campbell, E. T.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Margesson, Captain D.


Carver, Major W. H.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Cassels, J. D.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Grotrian, H. Brent
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. univ.)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter B.
Milne. J. S. Wardlaw-


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Chapman, Sir S.
Hamilton, sir George
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hanbury, C.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Christie, J. A.
Harmon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hartington, Marquess of
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Clayton, G. C.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Nelson, Sir Frank


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Haslam, Henry C.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Cope, Major Sir William
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Couper, J. B.
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Nuttall, Ellis


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hilton, Cecil
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Penny, Frederick George


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)




Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Tinne, J. A.


Perring, Sir William George
Sandon, Lord
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Savery, S. S.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Philipson, Mabel
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie
Waddington, R.


Pilcher, G.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew. W)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Pilditch, Sir Philip
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Radford, E. A.
Skelton, A. N.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Raine, Sir Walter
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Ramsden, E.
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Watts, Sir Thomas


Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wells, S. R.


Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-


Remer, J. R.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, ch'ts'y)
Storry-Deans, R.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Ropner, Major L.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Withers, John James


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Womersley, W. J.


Salmon, Major I.
Templeton, W. P.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Wright, Brig.-General W. D.


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)



Sandeman, N. Stewart
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Captain Wallace and Sir Victor Warrender.

Mr. ROBERT HUDSON: I beg to move, in page 3, line 41, after the word "but," to insert the words:
where the scheme does not so declare, the receipt of any such assistance by way of poor relief shall not involve any disqualification or disability which would not have been occasioned if the assistance had been provided by virtue of any of the aforesaid Bills and.
The object of this Amendment will, I hope, meet with the approval of the Minister, and of all parties in the House. Speaking generally, at present, under the existing law the receipt of Poor Law relief involves certain disqualifications, such as the rights to sit as a member of an urban district council or a rural district council, to receive pensions under the Old Age Pensions Act, and various other disqualifications. It is quite obvious that, if you want people to take full advantage of these new medical services, you want to remove any objection on their part to entering these institutions when they are under the control of the county council. It is with a view to removing any danger of such disqualifications taking place that this Amendment has been put on the Paper. There are two other Amendments with similar objects standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb). The latter goes very much further than my Amendment in that it does not limit the removal of this disqualification merely to persons who receive medical services; it extends it to all persons in receipt of Poor Law relief. The other Amendment, standing in the
name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mile End, does not, I am advised, actually carry out the object which he has in view. It is with the view of securing the object that I feel all sides of the Committee have in common that we have put down this Amendment.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I would just like to add a word or two to those of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken in urging the Minister to give this matter his serious consideration, and, if he can, to accept the Amendment. I want him thoroughly to understand that there is a strong feeling among Members of his own party that something on the lines indicated by this Amendment should be enacted in this Bill. Those of us who have had experience in the working of local authorities on this very question realise the difficulties that have existed in the past. We welcome Clause 4, but we feel that it ought to be strengthened in the way in which we have indicated. I agree that the other two Amendments on the Paper go much too far; this Amendment merely lays it down that the mere receipt of Poor Law relief by way of medical benefit shall not be a disqualification. I have at present a case in mind where an old lady had to be removed at very short notice to the Poor Law institution hospital. It was impossible to get her anywhere else. The relatives were quite prepared to pay for the cost of that old lady during the time she was in that hospital. But, even in those circumstances, they were advised that she would be disqualified from receiving benefit under the Old Age Pensions
Act. That is the sort of thing we want to see remedied. If the Minister does not agree to the form of words as drafted by my hon. Friend, myself and other hon. Members, if he thinks that those words do not exactly fit the case, I hope that he will be able to tell us that he is prepared to give very sympathetic consideration to this matter, and that he will insert the necessary words to cover the point which we all so much desire to see remedied. If he can do so I am sure that it will meet with approbation from all parties in the Committee.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: With the objects, as I understand it, of this Amendment, I am very much in sympathy. That is to say, I sympathise with the view that there ought not to be a, distinction in different counties as to the disqualifications according to the way the local authority has, or has not, adopted the powers existing under Clause 4. But, when we come to consider what the disqualifications or the disabilities may be, we find that they are spread, in fact, over a number of Acts of Parliament. It seems to me that to deal with this matter—and I am quite prepared to do so—it would be much better to deal with it by specific Amendments directed towards these specific points than by words such as those in the Amendment now before the Committee, which would be more or less vague in character. Therefore, I have to try and find out exactly what would be the grievance, or the cause which might become a grievance, which ought to be removed. One which has not been mentioned is that, whilst under Clause 9 a person is not disqualified from being a member of a council of a county or county borough
by reason only that he or a member of his family has received medical or surgical treatment, or been an inmate of an institution for that purpose.
that exemption from disqualification does not apply to a member of a district council or a parish council. I think we ought to remove that anomaly, and when we come to Clause 9 I propose to move an Amendment which will have the effect of extending the same exemption from disqualification to members of district or parish councils as is given under Clause 9 to members of county or county borough councils.
Then comes the point with regard to old age pensions. Here again, I think, as we have the possibility of persons who might be treated under the Poor Law being treated, as a matter of fact, in some cases, under one of the other Acts, that we ought to try to equalise the position as between the two. I have not put down, but I have a draft of, a new Clause which I think will deal with that point. I will read the terms of the Clause which I propose to put down.
On and after the appointed day a person shall not be disqualified for receiving or continuing to receive any pension under the Old Age Pensions Acts, 1908 to 1924, or under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, by reason of being an inmate of a Poor Law institution or part of a Poor Law institution specially provided or appropriated for the reception of the sick.
There also remains the question of the cases of certain persons who may at present be treated under the Poor Law or under certain other Acts, but who would not, in that case, be in receipt of Poor Law relief—I mean blind persons treated under the Blind Persons Act. There, again, I think I can put down an Amendment to Clause 9 which will deal with them, by adding a few words at the end of line 40 on page 8, to this effect:
Or receive relief which could have been granted under the Blind Persons Act, 1920.
That. I think, really deals with all the substance, at any rate, of my hon. Friend's Amendment, and although the point which the right hon. Gentleman was speaking about some time ago on another Amendment, as to the difference between the legal position of the two, still remains, yet, as I said at the time, that is more a theoretical than a practical difference. There is not really, I think, any serious hardship. In any case it seems to me that it is not a matter which should be dealt with here, but dealt with whenever the Poor Law as a whole is reviewed. I think when you are transferring the functions of the guardians to new authorities it is only reasonable that the latter should have a certain amount of time in which to see what are the difficulties which confront them in the working of the Poor Law as it stands at present and to make certain representations to the Government as to any alterations which should he made before we actually bring in a Measure to revise and reform the Poor
Law. For those reasons I say, first of all, that I do not think the difference in the legal position is a serious matter, and, secondly, that the time to alter it, if it is to be altered, is not now but at some later period.

Mr. WEBB: I hope the Committee will forgive me if I say a few words in reply to the right hon. Gentleman. First of all, I want sincerely to thank him for having given way as far as he has done so, and it is no doubt right that the Amendment which he is prepared to insert is better than the Amendment before the Committee. But the right hon. Gentleman has not carried out the terms of the Amendment which has been moved, because they go so far as to say:
The receipt of any such assistance by way of poor relief shall not involve any disqualification or disability which would not have been occasioned if the assistance had been provided by virtue of any of the aforesaid Bills.
Therefore, when the Minister of Health has carried out his undertaking and has made the three specific Amendments which he has mentioned, there will still remain the stigma of pauperism, which is a big thing. Apparently, the right hon. Gentleman's experts have told him that what I have stated previously was right in theory, and, if that is so, surely it is time that all this was altered after the admission that there is this loss of status. There is a great deal more than theory in this point. I have been looking into the subject, and I have made inquiries into the particular case which the Minister of Health quoted, where an unfortunate child was shockingly neglected- in a Poor Law infirmary, and the parent of the child actually did recover £1,000, so gross was the negligence. It has been admitted by those who were engaged in that case that the plaintiff had, in law, not a leg to stand upon, and every reported case shows that the pauper has no right of action against the board of guardians or the officials of the board of guardians.
Are we to have no sort of protection in such cases against guardians, workhouse masters, or labour yard masters who are not always humane and kind? Surely a right to take action in cases of that kind is a real protection to the pauper. Surely the Minister cannot defend a distinction of that kind and
that is a disability which has not been removed by this Amendment. In what has now been suggested the right hon. Gentleman has not given full effect to the Amendment. It is true that the Judge in the case I have mentioned approved the settlement arrived at, but that occurred because the board of guardians threw up the sponge and came to a settlement. Everybody concerned in that case held the opinion that if the case had gone for trial there must have been a verdict for the defendants.
It is the nature of Poor Law guardians to be timorous just now when there is a Conservative Government in office, and in the particular case I have cited the judge in the interests of humanity allowed agreement voluntarily arrived at to be entered as a judgment. If the Parliamentary Secretary will refresh his knowledge of the law by talking to those concerned in the case I have mentioned he will find that I am stating what is correct. It is a very real disability to every poor woman and child in a workhouse that the authorities concerned are immune from liability in law except under the criminal law. And that is not the whole of it. The pauper status carries a great deal more. For instance, under a great many schemes of the Charity Commissioners a person who is or has been in receipt of Poor Law relief is disqualified. We want to remove that.
Then the right hon. Gentleman said that this ought to wait until there is a general amendment of the Poor Law. There was a general amendment to the Poor Law in 1834, and there was not another until 1927. That is an interval of 93 years, and I am sure we cannot wait that time. I suggest that this is the time, because these 14 Clauses are a big amendment of the Poor Law—the biggest that there has been since 1834. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he cannot see his way to use this opportunity now to accept either the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Stockton (Captain Macmillan), or one of the other Amendments after it has been re-drafted, and so sweep away the pauper status. If he will not take this opportunity, and if we cannot convince the Committee that this opportunity ought to be taken, I. should like to see a Division taken on the point, so that we may at any rate
register our protest against the unneccessary continuance of the pauper status.

Mr. BENN: I do not think that anyone will complain of the Debate to-day so far as regards the character of the speeches. They have been confined to the very narrowest limits. Where do we stand now, at three minutes before the Guillotine falls? We have nine questions on the Paper that might be put from the Chair, as well as the question that this important Clause stand part of the Bill. The Minister has found it necessary already to promise three separate Amendments to his own Bill, and he has promised on this Amendment—I do not complain—a further Amendment and a new Clause which will have to be discussed within the limits of the existing

time-table. Despite all the sincere efforts that have been made to confine our criticism within the narrowest limits, most of the time has been taken up by uninvited speeches by the Parliamentary Secretary, and I simply content myself with making this remark, that this is not legislation by the House of Commons, but legislation by the officials of the Ministry of Health.

Mr. R. HUDSON: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

HON. MEMBERS: No.

Question put, "That those words be these inserted."

Tae Committee divided: Ayes, 138; Noes, 217.

Division No. 67.]
AYES.
[10.30 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ritson, J.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hardle, George D.
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Ammon, Charles George
Harney, E. A.
Saktatvala, Shapurji


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Harris, Percy A.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Baker, Walter
Hayday, Arthur
Scurr, John


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Sexton, James


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Bellamy, A.
Hollins, A.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond.


Benn, Wedgwood
Hore-Belisha, Lesile
Shinwell, E.


Bondfiefd, Margaret
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfleld)
Sitch, Charles H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Briant, Frank
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smillie, Robert


Broad, F. A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Bromfield, William
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kelly, W. T.
Stamford, T. W.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kennedy, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Buchanan, G.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kirkwood, D.
Strauss, E. A.


Cape, Thomas
Lansbury, George
Sullivan, J.


Chariston, H. C.
Lawrence, Susan
Sutton, J. E.


Cluse, W. S.
Lawson, John James
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Connolly, M.
Lee, F.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E)


Cove, W. G.
Longbottom, A. W.
Thurtle, Ernest


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lowth, T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Dalton, Hugh
Lunn, William
Tomlinson, R. P.


Davies, David (Montgomery)
Mackinder, W.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
MacLaren, Andrew
Viant, S. P.


Day, Harry
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Dunnico, H.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Watson, W. M (Dunfermline)


Edge, Sir William
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
March,. S.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Maxton, James
Wellock, Wilfred


Fenby, T. D.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Westwood, J.


Forrest, W.
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Murnin, H.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gibbins, Joseph
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gillett, George M.
Oliver, George Harold
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Palin, John Henry
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenall, T.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Windsor, Walter


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wright, W.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Potts, John S.



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grundy, T. W.
Riley, Ben
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Paling.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)


Albery, Irving James
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Astor, Viscountess
Burnett, Major Sir Richard


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Atkinson, C.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Berry, Sir George


Bethel, A.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Betterton, Henry B.
Hamilton, Sir George
Philipson, Mabel


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hanbury, C.
Plicher, G.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hartington, Marquess of
Power, Sir John Cecil


Brass, Captain W.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Radford, E. A.


Briscoe, Richard George
Haslam, Henry C.
Raine, Sir Walter


Brittain, Sir Harry
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Ramsden, E.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxt'd, Henley)
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Buchan, John
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Remer, J. R.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Bullock, Captain M.
Hilton, Cecil
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Burman, J. B.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Campbell, E. T.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Ropner, Major L.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cassels, J. D.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Salmon, Major I.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtmth. S.)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Christie, J. A.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hurd, Percy A.
Sandon, Lord


Clarry, Reginald George
Illffe, Sir Edward M.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Clayton, G. C.
Iveagh, Countess of
Savery, S. S.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Conway, Sir W. Martin
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. O. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)


Cope, Major Sir William
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Couper, J. B.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Skelton, A. N.


Courtauld, Major J. S
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Kinloch-Cooke Sir Clement
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kine'dine, C.)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Lamb, J. Q.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Long, Major Eric
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'cland)


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Lougher, Lewis
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Storry-Deans, R


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lumley, L. R.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Dawson, Sir Philip
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Macintyre, Ian
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Elliott, Major Walter E.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Tinne, J. A.


Ellis, R. G.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Margesson, Captain D.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Fielden, E. B.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Waddington, R.


Finburgh, S.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Fraser, Captain Ian
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Ganzoni, Sir John
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Wells, S. R.


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Goff, Sir Park
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Gower, Sir Robert
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Grace, John
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Withers, John James


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Nuttall, Ellis
Womersley, W J.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L


Grotrian, H. Brent
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wright, Brig.-General W. D.


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.



Gunston, Captain D. W.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. F. C. Thomson and Mr. Penny.


Question put, and agreed to.

It being after half-past Ten of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 12th December, to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at half-past Ten of the Clock at this day's Sitting.

CLAUSE 5.—(Public Assistance Committee.)

Ordered, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1928.

CLASS VI.

Resolved,
That a sum not exceeding £20,000 be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st day of March, 1929, for the payment of grants in respect of local rates on certain private mineral railways.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

NORTHERN IRELAND LAND [MONEY].

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [12th December], "That this House doth agree with the. Committee in the Resolution:
'That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such additional expenses of the Land Purchase Commission, Northern Ireland, as may be entailed by any Act of the present Session to amend the Northern Ireland Land Act, 1925.'

Question again proposed. "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, with the concurrence of the Minister of
Health, constituting a joint board consisting of representatives of the urban district Councils of Alderley Edge and Wilmslow, for the joint exercise of powers under the said Acts, which was presented on the 28th day of November, 1928, be approved."—(Colonel Ashley.)

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confrmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Dronfield, in the County of Derby, which was presented on the 20th day of November, 1928, be approved."—(Colonel Ashley.)

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of part of the urban district of Burnham-on-Sea, in the County of Somerset, which was presented on the 20th day of November, 1928, be approved."—(Colonel Ashley.)

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of part of the County of East Lothian, which was presented on the 20th day of November, 1928, be approved."—(Colonel Ashley.)

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Adjourned accordingly at a Quarter before Eleven o'Clock.